*1 analysis in this determine case case. would remand this to the trial sought if court the election officials to be added had the to (c) requisite knowledge notice and under OCGA 9-11-15 to allow to be added. Flaherty argues if
4. also that we construe election code defendants, unnamed it would be law certain new and should only. applied prospectively Const., I, I, be See 1983 Art. Sec. Par. Hayes X; Howell, As dissent, I stated in Division 3 of this would case remand the to allow Flaherty opportunity necessary However, to add the defendants. argument highlights opinion this this Court is If the need for a written this case.
going approve interpretation the trial court’s new necessary defendants, code election other trial potential parties courts and to election contests should be made interpretation. known of that Christopher Associates, Proctor, & Swartz,
Proctor Robert J. A. Attorney Bowers, General, J. Cohen, Michael Mark H. Senior Attorney General, Oxendine, Assistant Lee W.
S93A0511.MITCHELL MITCHELL.
Justice.
Sears-Collins,
following jury
May 6,
The
were divorced
trial on
found,
The
division,
However,
“as
issue
none.”
personal the
nie
certain
Bon-
“alimony.” Among
the items awarded to the wife were
parcels
Announcing
two
of and a
estate
tractor.1
verdict
jury foreperson,
reciting
court, the
after
those
other items
(the ap-
husband,
stated
John Mitchell
pellant),
property.”
foreper-
was to receive “the remainder of the
ber 6 from Emerald Drive to Lake
belonging
appellee
Cadillac;
Emerald
The items awarded to the wife were: lot
verdict;
was then
Corvette
Drive”;
parties’ child;
living; $24,000
payments
“twenty-foot permanent
t-tops;
horses
to
$2,000
Spivey”;
and a
truck;
paid
per
month
household
tractor;
number
easement
lump
new
sum within
10 and
three
furnishings
lawnmower;
horse
years.
lot number
westerly
trailer;
approximately
new boat and
trusteeship
border of lot num
house
of “the
four months
where the
of stock
trailer;
appear
version of
written
statement
son’s last
appear
and decree.
verdict,
the final
and does
entered, the wife refused to
were
and decree
After the
parcel
of land
a third
to the husband
turn over
parties
names,
attach-
as well
certain
of their
both
(trailer,
hog,
loader,
harrow,
disc
front-end
bush
ments to the
prop-
landscaper),
admits are marital
all of which the wife
and box
*2
specific
among
erty,
to the
the
items awarded
which were not
and
of the
filed a motion for modification
The husband
wife
the
effectually
judgment
contending
judgment,
not
“does
[carry
jury’s
fully
19-5-13,
verdict,”
it does
because
out]
OCGA
the
provide
of the
receive “the remainder
husband shall
not
property,”
that
the
jury
part
the
of
verdict as announced
the
which
argued
awarding
foreperson.
the husband “the
that
The husband
jury
property,”
intended for him to receive all
the
remainder of the
including
specifically
property
to the
the
marital
tractor attachments and
property.
not
jointly
real
of the
titled
the wife’s
modify
judgment be-
the
The trial court denied the motion to
days
entered.
after the
it was filed more than 30
cause
held, in
attachments, however,
the
the trial court
of
With
to the
interpretation”
decree,
the
that the at-
form of
“nonsubstantive
“parts”
tractor,
im-
such were
and as
tachments were
of the “whole”
plicitly
in
the wife.
included
the award to
expressly
an
declined make
find
because the
We
that
equitable
property
and the husband
the
division of
between
any
alimony,
ownership
parties’
pray
in
interests
mari
the
did not
specific
alimony
property
in its
award of
not addressed
tal
they
entered. See
the decree was
to the wife remain as
were before
(1978);
467)
Lee,
600,
Lee v.
148
Cale, 242
Cale v.
Ga.
601
2
Dyche,
(1978);
App.
Randall v.
see also
(1981)
pursuit
(regarding ex-spouse’s
of
action).
property rights
For the same rea
not determined
divorce
part
pronouncement
any
which
the verdict
oral
of
sons
of the
any portion
may bp
marital
the husband
construed to award
Pray
Pray,
surplusage.
was mere
(award
(1967)
prayed
alimony
where none
erroneous
-
for).
Therefore,
the tractor attach
neither
nor
Cale,
In
this Court stated
follows:
jointly
property,
property,
including
not described
the verdict
owned
[T]itle
the name of
is
decree and remains
unaffected
divorce
Any
man-
issues as
before the decree was entered.
future
owner or owners
agement,
disposal
be treated as
should
of this
division or
arise,
parties
they
regard
previous
wife.
as husband and
status
without
Cale,
ments were dispute do they property, that are marital retain their ownership property. interests in both items of simply become For wife to sole owner of attachments ownership tractor, her basis of attachments must be thing.” “so to the tractor as to become “one and the same attached” Co., Ins. See Austrian Motors Travelers SE2d Appeals Motors, Austrian In the Court of held that interchangeable, they because tires wheels are detachable and are integral part ownership pass not so by of an as to allow automobile analysis applies accession. We believe that the same to the tractor they integral part attachments are so ownership necessarily in- tractor the wife’s of the tractor ownership regard cludes attachments, the decision of the trial court is reversed. Judgment part part. and reversed All the Justices affirmed except part. concur, Hunstein, J., who dissents in dissenting part. Justice,
Hunstein, majority’s opinion only holding I can concur with the as to its regarding property. disposi- am the first to admit that the *3 proceeding tion of tractor attachments a divorce does not seem to worthy my be a matter of a written dissent. But concern is not with implements mundane farm in this but rather the ma- jority’s apply principles failure to well established of law that man- ruling regarding date affirmance of the trial court’s those tractor at- tachments. may It is well established that the court construe a verdict in the
light pleadings and the evidence adduced at trial order to Turley conform to the reasonable intendment of the See v. Turley, (1979); Gough Gough, 244 Ga. 808 SE2d (2) (235 9) (1977). judge pre- SE2d in the case bar at had pleadings sided at the trial of the had the before him against when he construed the verdict and ruled Mr. Mitchell’s claim for the tractor It well is also established appealing party by proving has the burden of error the record and contrary, anything the absence of this court should judge’s ruling pleadings, sume was authorized admis- Gillespie sions made or evidence at trial. Gillespie, 688) (1990); Newton, Ga. 838 SE2d Newton v. (2) (149 128) (1966). Ga. 175 Coleman, Law v. Accord (1) (159 679) (1931). appellant, SE Mr. chose not to pleadings transcript appeal, include the or the trial record — majority pleadings and the without benefit of those or evidence — accept heard has chosen to at face value Mr. Mitchell’s ruling unsupported the trial did not reflect the assertion that court’s presumption jury, thereby ignoring reasonable intendment validity ruling. the law accords to the trial court’s tractor attachments for owner- That “tractor” does not include purposes bearing ship-by-accession has no on what the case intended to include its award or whether this trial divorce court erred jury, determining the reasonable intendment of appellate pleadings evidence before the court. That shown an appellant ruling wrong justify claims a trial court’s evidentiary placed ignoring legal presumptions and the burdens parties. prove appealing Because would Mr. Mitchell to ruling nothing in trial court’s was error and because there is the rec- presumption ruling correct, ord that the trial court’s to rebut I dissent. Stephen Wallace, II,
Albert B. Arch W. B. Wallace McGarity, Carr, Thomas D. THE LEE
IN
MATTER OF JIMMY
COLLINS.
Disciplinary
No.
(Supreme Court
Per curiam.
Respondent’s appeal
aggravated
Pending
from his conviction
practice
assault,
In the Matter
he was
of law.
from
Jimmy
Collins,
Lee
After that