*1 testimony by the Board. The record contains the before held hearing attorney Ringstaff supervised s officer of an who had Ms. Legal Society Aid for two in the healthcare unit of the Atlanta work quiet, years. studious, resourceful, her as conscien- He described very authority, to and stated she had not made tious, deferential judicial system, to him that were critical of the statements judges, lawyers. professor applicant A as law-school described completely respectful of all her classmates and testified she never applicant say anything negative heard about law enforcement or display contempt respect any category persons. or a lack of for The professor Ringstaffs stated she had no reservations about Ms. professor character or Another testified he had fitness. law-school applicant display contempt legal system never seen her for the and found always great and truth- to have conducted herself with candor fulness. Ringstaff
We conclude from our review of the record that Ms. possesses integrity required established that she and character to Georgia. abe member of the State Bar of Inasmuch as the Board’s grounds finding supported record, for otherwise not we reverse the decision of the Board and direct that it a certificate issue practice Ringstaff. of fitness to law to Ms. light applicant’s In above,
4. we need not address remaining enumerations of error. practice granted. law Ml the Justices Certificate of fitness
concur. February Decided appellant. Nesset-Sale,
Jo Carol Attorney Baker, General, Mick, Thurbert E. Rebecca S. Senior Attorney Brumbaugh, Attorney General, Assistant Ann S. Assistant appellee. General, Lockwood, Sarah E. Admissions, Bar Officeof S10A1436. PITTMAN et al. v. STATE OF GEORGIA. NAHMIAS, Justice. (“the Pittmans”) Bobby Judy corpora- Pittman and their Hungry Jumping tion, Foods, Jacks Inc. Jacks Convenience d/b/a Jacks”), (“Jumping appeal that, Store among from the trial court’s order things, appointed to take control of the receiver assets manage Jumping of and to Jacks. We affirm. brought
On March the State this action under the (RICO) Organizations Georgia Corrupt Racketeer Influenced and seq. complaint alleged Act. See 16-14-1 et (“the defendants”) Jumping engaged Pittmans and Jacks had illegal gambling July numerous acts of commercial since permitting Jumping play gaming customers of Jacks to electronic premises. complaint alleged devices located on the gambling commercial violated OCGA 16-12-22 and constituted a *2 racketeering activity § under OCGA 16-14-3 and that the asso- Jumping ciation of the Pittmans and Jacks constituted an “enter- (6). § prise” complaint under OCGA 16-14-3 The stated that the proceeding personam against Jump- State was the Pittmans and ing (a), (b), (c), Jacks, that their actions violated OCGA 16-14-4 and provided and that the State was entitled to the relief for in OCGA (a) (1) (a) (5), through including divesting 16-14-6 an order them of any any enterprise property alleged interest related to the proceeded RICO violations. Under rem 16-14-7, the State also against gaming currency electronic devices and United States alleged sought that the State forfeiture of that were seized on March 8, 2010, and
property property as well as derived from racketeering activities. prayed injunctive alleging The State relief, for that the Pittmans possession, custody personal “had in their and control both and real property racketeering ... which were used to further” the activities through and which “were obtained derived the unlawful and/or alleged enjoined, acts.” The State that unless the Pittmans would dispose personal property, including “conceal and of such and real money.” complaint requested appointment also of a receiver Jumping to take control of Jacks and other in rem named in to complaint availability respond “to insure the of such assets to any judgment the court enter in the action.” Along complaint, seeking the State filed a motion (TRO) temporary restraining porary appointment and the of a tem- requested
receiver. The motion that the court conduct an ex parte hearing, alleging likely that notice of the motion “would result in the destruction, removal, and concealment of the evidence and [the activity alleged complaint] of instrumentalities criminal in the parte as well as the fruits thereof.” The court conducted an ex hearing day. 8, 2010, on March the motion that same prohibited Jumping among The TRO other the Pittmans and from, Jacks things, disposing of the documents or assets of the temporary manage business. receiver was authorized to take control of the assets of the business. April interlocutory
On the State filed a motion for an hearing and to continue the At a on the April illegal motion held on 7-8, the State introduced evidence Jumping gambling gaming had occurred at with electronic devices Judy July Pittman, who Jacks on several occasions since Jumping defendants, Jacks, testified for the as President of served illegal gambling activity. denying any knowledge of April trial court the State’s motion On injunction, continuing in effect the terms of an receivership. The court found TRO. The court also continued the minimize inflicted on the defen- that the receiver would the harm dissolving receivership and the TRO could leave dants and that remedy adequate prevail it at trial. The the State without an should likely, rejecting Judy regarded Pittman’s this outcome as “testimony denying knowledge operations specifi- and, more store cally, poker operations.” machine The court also noted that the video analysis yet related receiver had not finished his of the business and likely accounting assets and that an would be crucial both resolution of the case on the merits
defendants’ creditors’ interests. appealed, invoking equity jurisdic-
The defendants this Court’s Const, VI, VI, tion. See Ga. Art. Sec. Par. Ill 1. The defendants that the TRO was invalid several including reasons, that the trial court erred it without *3 comply prereq notice to them because the State failed to § obtaining parte uisites for an ex TRO set forth in 9-11-65 OCGA (b).1 moot, however, These contentions because the TRO has superseded by interlocutory injunction, been the and the defendants any alleged entering do not that error in the TRO somehow interlocutory injunction, infected the which was entered after notice hearing. to the defendants and a full Brown, See Stewart v. 253 Ga. (321 738) (1984); 480, 481 SE2d United Food & Commercial Workers (321 Amberjack, Ltd., Union v. 253 Ga. 438-439 SE2d any principal event, In we find no merit to the defendants’ entering contention that the trial court erred the TRO without notice to them. Our the review of record that the demonstrates complaint attorney’s verified and the State’s certification were A [1] adverse temporary restraining verified will result to the heard in efforts, supporting party § 9-11-65 (2) (1) if complaint It or his opposition; any, clearly appears (b) provides: applicant’s attorney which have been made to attorney party’s applicant claim immediate and only may from before the adverse that notice should not if: be specific certifies to the irreparable injury, facts shown without written or oral notice to the give party the notice and the reasons court, or his be affidavit or required. attorney loss, writing, damage can be the 592 injury irreparable “show[ ] that immediate and would
sufficient defendants] [was] [the relief before could be result unless opposition why required. [and] heard in . . . notice should not be See (2).” (b) Oatman, 9-11-65 Ebon Foundation v. 269 OCGA Ga. (498 728) (1998). Roland, 343 SE2d See also Richardson v. (472 301) (1996) (“If danger 35 SE2d there is Ga. dissipated interlocutory hearing, be before the a trial assets will court exercising may appoint temporary its sound discretion preserve quo.”). receiver without notice order to the status 2. The defendants contend that the trial court erred in interlocutory injunction continuing and in We disagree. power appointing
itWhile is true that a receiver prudently cautiously should be exercised and should (OCGA except urgent not be resorted to in clear and cases 9-8-4), grant receivership or refusal of a “is matter legal [trial] addressed to the court, sound discretion of the appeal] [on the exercise of which will not be interfered with manifestly unless such discretion be abused.” Hosp., Ga. Rehabilitation Center v. Newnan 737) (2008) (citation omitted). Thus, may appoint property a court a receiver when fund or litigation rights parties and the of either or both of the protected. purpose cannot otherwise be of the receiv- ership preserve property subject is to which is the litigation, rights provide parties’ and to full to the property disposition until a final of the issues. Chrysler Dorminey, Ins. Co. v. (1999) (citations omitted). Accord Ebon Foundation, 344; 269 Ga. at (“When Richardson, 35; at Ga. OCGA 9-8-1 fund or litigation rights parties is in and the of either or both fully protected cannot otherwise be ..., a receiver of the same *4 appointed by judge superior jurisdiction having be thereof.”). the of the appoint
In addition to the
receiver,
discretion to
a
a trial
grant
necessary powers
court has discretion “to
the receiver the
to
job
properly appointed
do the
that he had been
to do.” Ga. Rehabili-
Hosp.,
tation Center v. Newnan
69-70
Similarly,
a trial court has broad discretion to issue
injunctions
preserve
quo
generally pending
to
the status
more
final
adjudication
dispute.
Foundation,
of a
See Ebon
Under the circumstances of this
where
subject
litigation, raising
that are a
the
controlled the assets
they
dissipated
litigation
possibility
could be
before the
that
enjoining
resolved, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
the
disposing
from
of
of the documents or assets of the
Pittmans
continuing
Foundation,
the
See Ebon
business
(holding
commingling
corporate
of
Ga. at 343
that because of
personal assets,
court did
its discretion in
the trial
not abuse
appointing
protect
an
a
to
“the interests of
receiver
adjudi-
parties
until those assets could be sorted out
a final
claims”);
(holding
Richardson,
cation of the various
3. The defendants in contend that the trial court erred not (b).2 requiring post the State to a bond under OCGA 16-14-6 However, because the defendants failed to in the trial move court for post appeal. bond, the State to a this issue will not be considered on Trucking, Cotton, See Inc. v.Phil-Dan (1998) (holding that a defendant’s failure to the trial court move to require plaintiff post to bond in a RICO case bars the defendant raising appeal). from the issue on did defendants move for the post require [whether bond, a receiver to but the trial court had “discretion to] [the] give or not receiver to bond conditioned for the discharge reposed,” 9-8-10, faithful cannot of the trust and we say that the trial court abused that discretion this case. (b) provides OCGA 16-14-6 as follows: Any aggrieved person proceeding or the state institute a under subsection (a) permits superior court, among things, [which of Code section to “any any enterprise, property, order a defendant to divest himself of real interest personal property” acquired through racketeering activity]. proceeding, or In such conformity principles govern granting relief shall be that cases, injunctive damage provided relief threatened from loss or other civil showing special irreparable damage person no shall have to be made. Upon proper against damages injunction improvidently the execution of bond for an showing danger significant damage, and a of immediate loss or temporary restraining preliminary injunction may order and a be issued in such action before a final determination on the merits. *5 594 denying
4. contend that the trial court erred in The defendants the motion to intervene filed certain Pittman relatives and one of specifically companies. court, however, their declined to rule on opportunity respond, had an the motion until provided by State as Superior Uniform Court Rule 6.2. Because the trial court ripe appellate it intervene, has not ruled on the motion to is not (673 210) (2009) 11, 14 SE2d Folsom, review. See State v. (holding ruling, of one that on review trial yet ripe another issue on which the trial court had not ruled was not review). denying 5. The defendants contend that the trial court erred in complaint against personam their oral motion to dismiss the the in defendants. The defendants’ brief states that will this amending transcript enumeration of error after the record to add the hearing transcript at which oral motion was decided. This May 21, 2010, certified on and it argue in Court, was has been filed but the defendants failed to Thus, have issue. this enumera- “ lacking specific argument’ [it] tion of error is ‘so in should be (687 809) Lance, deemed abandoned.” Hall v. Ga. SE2d (587 (quoting Head (2003), Hill, v. SE2d 22). citing Supreme express opinion Court Rule We therefore no on this issue.
Judgment All the Justices concur. affirmed. concurring.
HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice,
fully
majority opinion.
regard
I concur
I
in
with
write
argument,
State’s
which we did not have to reach due to the
appellants’
Majority Opinion,
default,
individual
see
Division that
pursue
personam
charges
the State can still
so-called
in
“civil”
RICO
against non-corporate
notwithstanding
holding
individuals
our
in
831) (2009) (civil
Ga.,
Cisco v. State
Decided appellants. Bryant, Bryant Cook, Jr., for Malcolm F. & Attorney, Hall, Bloch, & Hayward Garland Altman, District Kennedy, Lambros, Ekonomou, for Meyer, Andrew Michael G. F. John appellee. et al. et al. v. GOLDEN
S10A1598. WALLER *6 Justice. Melton, appeal neighbors, Craig from a Wallers,1 and Jena Golden’s request County denying Henry Superior for an their Court swimming pool remove a to force the Goldens to property. yard For in the side of their own had constructed Goldens follow, affirm. the reasons that we Landing Eagles in the reveals that the Goldens reside
The record McDonough, Landing”) Country community (“Eagles Geor- Club Eagles Landing governed gia. covenants, one of restrictive swimming pools to areas behind limits the construction which residential units. proposal August a 2009, the Goldens submitted Prior to (ARB) Eagles Board to the Architectural Review (HOA) swimming pool Landing a to build Homeowners Association compliance Although proposed plan yard. not in was in their side approved Landing Eagles covenants, it on restrictive was August nor the ARB was aware 7, 2009, because neither the Goldens signed a contract with builder of the restriction. The Goldens payment upon pool $1,975 the construction of the and made projected to be The construction was execution of the contract. completed days $39,500. in 60 at a cost of equipment August arrived at the Goldens’ On construction neighbors property. in the time, At this at least one of the involved August appeal pool to be constructed. On current knew that a was objection pool’s neighbor location to the 16, one voiced her saying, my gosh, you After other Goldens, “Oh can’t do that.” yard being neighbors began pool was to realize a a side concerned August lodging complaints with the HOA. On built, started payment pool $2,089 made a on construction-related the Goldens expenses. meeting regarding August to address held a how
On the HOA James Deraney, Roberts, shall hereinafter be Atkinson, Gene Christian neighbors Babb, Ola Baldwin, collectively referred to as “the Wallers.” Nikki involved Atkinson, Babb, Kevin and Leandro Toletino. Noreen Johnson, appeal Walker, include: William Julie Calvin Johnson, For ease of Walker, Waller, William reference, Michael Peggy Sutton, Waller, Roberts, these Janey Michelle B. neighbors Sutton, Deana