Tate v. Tate
340 Ga. App. 361
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Former spouses disputed custody and child support for their minor child, G.T.; custody had shifted between them over years with a 2015 hearing setting temporary custody for Misty Tate and suspending her support payments to George Tate.
- Misty filed a contempt petition (filed Jan 5, 2016) alleging George failed to pay $3,129.15 for child support, non-covered medical expenses, and attorney fees, and sought enforcement based on a purported agreement reached at an August 13, 2015 pretrial discussion.
- A hearing occurred (no transcript in record) and the trial court, on Jan 15, 2016, entered an order finding George in contempt, ordered an immediate purge payment of $1,600 (part of the $3,129.15), and awarded attorney fees to Misty; the order was made nunc pro tunc to August 13, 2015.
- George appealed, arguing the contempt finding lacked a written court order requiring the payments, the nunc pro tunc date was improper, and the attorney-fee award lacked statutory or specific factual basis.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether contempt was proper absent a signed, filed order; whether nunc pro tunc relief could backdate the Jan 15 ruling to August 13, 2015; and whether attorney fees were authorized in this contempt context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tate) | Defendant's Argument (Tate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant could be held in contempt for failing to pay $3,129.15 | There was an agreement at the Aug 13, 2015 pretrial discussion obligating George to pay; a signed order was unnecessary | No signed, filed court order required; counsel’s alleged agreement not in record | Reversed: contempt improper because no signed, filed order existed authorizing the payments |
| Validity of $1,600 purge payment deadline | Purge payment was part of enforceable court direction | Purge improperly rests on an unenforceable contempt finding | Reversed: purge payment vacated along with contempt finding |
| Award of attorney fees to plaintiff for prosecuting contempt | Fees recoverable as part of contempt enforcement | No express authority or specific findings to support fee award | Reversed: fee award vacated for lack of authority and findings |
| Use of nunc pro tunc to date the final order to Aug 13, 2015 | Ruling should be treated as effective from Aug 13 based on prior action/discussion | Court didn’t rule until Jan 15, 2016; nunc pro tunc cannot supply non-action by the court | Reversed: nunc pro tunc entry improper because ruling was made on Jan 15, 2016 |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. CGU Ins. Co., 269 Ga. App. 549 (distinguishing criminal and civil contempt; general contempt principles)
- Stewart v. Tricord, LLC, 296 Ga. App. 834 (criminal contempt standard of review cited)
- In re Hughes, 299 Ga. App. 66 (appellate review standard for contempt trials)
- Locke’s Graphic & Vinyl Signs v. Citicorp Vendor Finance, 285 Ga. App. 826 (briefs cannot add evidence to the record)
- Ray v. Ray, 263 Ga. 719 (enforcement of settlement/consent agreements distinct from holding in contempt)
- Stone v. King, 196 Ga. App. 251 (same premise on enforcing agreements)
- Shirley v. Abshire, 288 Ga. App. 819 (orders ineffective until signed and filed by judge)
- Minor v. Minor, 257 Ga. 706 (attorney fees in contempt require express authority or findings)
- Coleman v. Coleman, 240 Ga. 417 (limits on nunc pro tunc entries; cannot supply court inaction)