*1 Moriarty disqualify probate However, court did not Executrix.” merely joint her husband. a account with maintained she because disqualified to entitlement she claims her because Rather, the court Moriarty may belong is the estate. As account, in which funds that beneficiary that a con- will, the trial court concluded under the anót say pro- circumstances, cannot Under these flict existed. Moriarty removing as executor.12 its in discretion bate court abused Judgment Smith, Miller, J., J., and concur. C. affirmed. July
Decided Hawkins, Lovein, Jr., Smith, Jones, Miller, & Hubert C. Cork appellant. Hollingsworth Reeves, III, Smith & G. Boone Reichert, Jr., Reichert, A. Anderson, Albert R Robert Walker & appellee. Reichert, for et ADAMS et al.
A03A0954. DEKALB COUNTY al. v. (585 SE2d Judge. Phipps, County various that DeKalb The trial court found they a that were in officials had failed incorporated agreement of the which settlement an order involving jail. individ- and the medical care appeal, arguing enforce the that the trial court cannot ual officials agreement that, comply settlement because it has now they event, reasonable, made faith efforts to with arguments reject terms. We these and affirm. its County jail 26, 2001, and DeKalb On March DeKalb inmates required entered into improve implement policies procedures certain . jail provided Dr. care inmates. The stated that medical Robert expense, Greifinger jail regularly, county’s would visit the at the compliance
to monitor the “[t]he provided term of Settlement and Agreement eighteen Release shall be for months the date of exe- adopted 26, 2001, cution.” an order dated March the trial court parties it. and ordered the with later, moved the court to find the Three months the inmates jail arguing contempt, worsened, conditions at the improved. hearing, the court the motion rather than After Huff, See Wardlaw contempt. and held the both civil and criminal The con- tempt order, 30, 2001, dated November set forth various conditions contempt, civil must meet to itself of the including paying bi-monthly inspections to make until he determined that the was in com- substantial pliance with the terms of the settlement consecu- two *2 inspections. respect finding contempt, tive With to the of criminal the expressly ruling punitive county order reserved on sanctions. The appealed, Dorsey but we affirmed the order v. Adams.1 Supreme county’s petition certiorari, Court denied the for August the case was remitted to the trial court in county September 11, 2002, On filed a motion to con- tempt. days evidentiary hearing, later, Two held an Greifinger improve- which Dr. testified that he had seen “tremendous jail during inspec- ment” in the medical care at the his recent most “utilizing tion and that the sheriff was now his best efforts in faith” to enforce the terms of the settlement But Dr. Greifinger also testified that there remained “serious deficiencies” in county medical care at the and that the still was “not close” to con-, complying with most the conditions of the November 2001 tempt order.
After testified, Dr. the court addressed the settlement agreement’s expiration county position date. The took the it — expire September 26, would on 18 months after its execution. postponed ruling purged The court on whether the had itself contempt, expire, of allow on and when the settlement would parties to brief those issues. County attorney 9, 2002,
On October the DeKalb sent Dr. Greif- inger stating a letter that because the had expired, longer longer pay no needed and would no — Greifinger’s monitoring jail. Dr. visits to the The inmates then contempt, arguing filed another motion for refusal permit Greifinger’s inspections “willful, was a intentional flouting” authority. issuing blatant of the court’s After a show cause hearing, order, the court held another at which the contended expired September that because the settlement had on power compliance 26, the court’s to coerce with that expired. The court then 1, 2002, issued an order dated November complied that DeKalb had not with the remedial measures set forth in the November 2001 order and therefore had not contempt. Rejecting county’s argument itself of civil contempt order, enforce its November it now lacked the court directed to the settlement the tempt. officials individual and various fully comply all of the terms . with use their “best efforts to . . again, agreement” Once sanctions. new remedial ruling punitive criminal con- on sanctions court reserved in the November listed and the individuals county) (collectively, appeal. order argument that the inmates’ matter, we address 1. As an initial appeal. claim that a The inmates hear this we lack opportunity giving itself is the contemnor an order (a) (2), directly appealable. a direct 5-6-34 But under OCGA holding appeal of court.2 an one be taken from order county points out, inmates which the cases cited As hearings evidentiary appeal premature did held not involve purged and therefore are to determine whether not had been factually analogous to case.3 county argues improperly modified the
2. The that the trial court parties’ Because the terms of the argues it 26, 2001, on March was executed September argument And, continues, the court’s 26, 2002. directing with the settle- November ment order *3 improperly term of that extended the 18-month agreement.4 did alter the terms of the
The court’s November 2002 order not agreement. county had failed to Rather, settlement it found that the contempt during prior finding the 18- of that was made practical effect of month term of the While the the agree- the November 2002 order was to extend the life of solely directly ment, that extension resulted from the contempt the 18- failure to month term. As the trial court appealed.” itself of within the remainder of “[rjather purge, put it, the than delay responsibility with conclud- The associated county. ing the lies with the simply 2002 order was the trial court’s effort to The November contempt power inherent of earlier, its lawful order. enforce grounded courts and the Official Code enforce their orders is both the constitution county argues of this state.5 2 (442 (1) 919) Co., Manning App. 212 SE2d See v. MNC Consumer Discount Ga. 824 (1994). 3 (1) (291 99) 379, See, e.g., Corp., App. 162 SE2d Carter v. Data Gen. Ga. 380-381 (1) 177) (B) (1978). (1982); Bank, 348, Lake v. Hamilton Ga. (“This Boyett Wester, See, e.g., court has v. Ga. 387-388 modify authority contempt proceeding repeatedly in a held that the trial court has no parties.). terms a divorce decree” that was reached consent (“Each VI, I, powers 1983, See IV exercise such Ga. Const. of Art. Sec. Par. judgments.”); necessary protect in aid of its or to or effectuate its OCGA 15- as power authority to
court’s inherent expired does not include the enforce s adopting par orders,6 26, uch as the March 2001 order persuasive authority, ties’ settlement As Appeals on relies the decision of the United Court of for the States 40, case, Second in EEOC Circuit inapposite. v. Local Intl. Assn. &c.7 That how ever, is
In v. EEOC Local the defendant union had entered into consent decree in 1980 to settle a discrimination suit. The consent provided expressly years. decree a term of three the EEOC holding contempt moved a court order the union in of the decree. motion, The federal district court but the Second Circuit holding Appeals reversed, Court the district court lacked many inherent years ago: to enforce a consent that had decree against
“If we were to enforce this consent decree Local 40 years expiration, depriving twelve the benefit of its after its we would be the union of
bargain.”8 contempt case, In this the inmates moved for a before expiration of the settlement not a decade after it had expired, as in EEOC Local 40. When the trial court issued its nearly year order, November 2001 remained of settle- agreement’s ment term. To hold that order became unenforceable after the “ran out the clock” the settlement purging deprive without ever itself of would county, bargain. Although, inmates, not the of the benefit of their as county argues, parties negotiated a finite term for the settle- agreement, they contemplated ment also that the would com- ply agreement during that term. But the did not comply, complain expiration and it cannot now that the of the term compliance, particularly halts the court’s lawful efforts to coerce began long when those efforts before the was due to expire. argues by finding
3. The
trial court erred
itself
because there was
wilfully
no evidence that it had
failed to
with the November
Greifinger’s testimony
order. The
cites
*4
improvement”
his most recent
to
visit
revealed “tremendous
using
and that he believed the sheriff
now
was
his “best
efforts
comply
faith” to
with the
of
terms
the settlement
(3) (“Every
compel
orders,
1-3
judgments,
[t]o
court has
...
pro-
obedience to its
therein.”).
judge
proceeding
cess
the orders of a
out
court
of
in an action or
6
206)
(1970)
Pointer,
Michigan,
(party
See Mar-Pak
Inc. v.
247 county points out, find wilful disobedience a court must theAs contempt.9 holding party no But find author- order before its ity proposition condi- has been found and that, once for party established, extricate itself have been tions — though “good solely by making unsuccess- faith” comply this incomplete In with those conditions. ful effort or signifi- made while the testified that case, Dr. Dorsey progress Adams, it still was v. our recent after decision cant “not lished complying estab- with most of conditions close” to by did order. evidence 2001 the November “doing they can” all officers were and individual show that the comply inca- or that to pable with the trial court’s directives compliance. circumstances, trial Under these of such by finding county had not its discretion did not abuse the contempt.10 appeal penalties frivolous under for for inmates’ motion (b) Appeals is denied.
Court of Rule Ellington, Judgment Blackburn, J., J., P. con- concurs. affirmed. specially. curs Presiding Judge, concurring specially. Blackburn, majority, fully analysis judgment I concur with appellees’ opinion denying except for motion as Division 4 of the grant penalty penalties appeal. such in the I would for frivolous appellants $1,000, as is basis for the amount of there no reasonable they deprive court of could the trial believe by “running out the clock” on the settle- enforce its order appellants appeal as It is clear that used ment part litigation strategy, purging rather than their of their through compliance requirements trial established court. July 9,
Decided Benjamin Pope, King Spalding, Russ, & Alan A. Michael C. W! Eugene Stevens, Hicks, Fortson, Reed, Jr., C. Charles G. Xernia L. appellants. (“The (1977) Griggers Bryant, con basis for a [Cits.]”). judgment court.
tempt is with a or order of the action a ‘wilful’ refusal (1) (b) (545 405) (2001) Earle, (reviewing See re Ga. purge). ruling party had trial court’s not met conditions of abuse of discretion *5 Rung, appel- Serwer, Rowan,
Tamara H. Milton Lisa D. L. lees.
A03A0313. CITY OF BUFORD v. GWINNETT COUNTY. Barnes, Judge. City piece property, After the of Buford annexed arid rezoned a County declaratory seeking judgment a Gwinnett filed action argued County property the annexation voided. The was not “contiguous” by being separated § 36-36-31, as defined OCGA from city boundary by parcels property, including the by Georgia three one owned Company. agreed County Power The trial court void. declared, City appeals, contending and the annexation follow, the trial court erred. For the reasons that we affirm the trial court’s decision to void the annexation. Georgia LLC, Court,
DEC-Mall the owner of 2.38 acres of land County, petitioned City property in Gwinnett rezone it from OI to C2. DEC was to annex its
considering building a drive- through property, a bank and restaurant and Gwinnett County attempt rezoning delayed moratorium that would have an property through County. City to rezone the notified County proposed objected, County the stating annexation, and the property “contiguous” its concern that the was not it because separated boundary city by separate parcels from the three property, objecting proposed rezoning. and further to the City Planning Zoning approved
Meanwhile, the Board rezoning, City passed annexation Commission, as did the which annexing property. peti- an ordinance Gwinnett then declaratory judgment City’s tioned for a annexation was parties stipulated authenticity void. The the facts and of documents hearing County’s court, before the trial which then petition and declared the annexation void. parties stipulated upon
1. Because the facts which the trial decision, court based its we review the trial court’s decision on the interpretation plain legal of the annexation statute for error. Suarez Halbert, city only adjacent contiguous
A annex an area that is or “contiguous its boundaries. OCGA 36-36-21. A area” is area directly municipal boundary separated that abuts on the- or is boundary municipal by by municipal corporation, by lands owned lands by county, by by owned or owned lands this state or