Sigal v. Sigal
289 Ga. 814
Ga.2011Background
- Amy Sigal and David Sigal married in 2002 and have two children (born 2004 and 2007).
- Children have special needs: the son has speech issues, ADHD, and requires one-on-one supervision; prior orders required supervised visitation for the father due to his cocaine and alcohol abuse, with testing conditions.
- In 2009, the court granted separate maintenance; visitation remained supervised with drug/alcohol testing requirements for the father.
- At a 2010 final hearing, the court orally announced a plan to transition the children from supervised to unsupervised visitation, including random drug testing for the father and a three-month gradual transition.
- The final divorce decree, entered September 13, 2010, included a nunc pro tunc provision to April 13, 2010, purporting to implement the transition period, which effectively erased the three-month transition.
- Appellant challenged the nunc pro tunc entry as an abuse of discretion; the trial court and appellee failed to preserve or reflect the orally announced transition plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nunc pro tunc entry improperly eliminated the transition period | Sigal contends the nunc pro tunc entry erased the court-ordered transition for unsupervised visitation. | Sigal contends the transition was intended and the nunc pro tunc entry simply recorded the original ruling. | Nunc pro tunc entry abused trial court's discretion; transition period invalidated |
Key Cases Cited
- Maples v. Maples, 289 Ga. 560 (Ga. 2011) (nunc pro tunc may relate to original hearing but not to third-party interests)
- Coleman v. Coleman, 240 Ga. 417 (Ga. 1977) (nunc pro tunc to record action taken or judgment rendered previously)
- Norman v. Ault, 287 Ga. 324 (Ga. 2010) (limits on nunc pro tunc when affecting interests of third parties)
- Moore v. Moore, 229 Ga. 600 (Ga. 1972) (nunc pro tunc doctrine; later overruled on other grounds)
- Dellinger v. Dellinger, 278 Ga. 732 (Ga. 2004) (visitation necessarily implicates the best interests of the child)
- Swindell v. Swindell, 208 Ga. 727 (Ga. 1952) (nunc pro tunc considerations; limitations in certain contexts)