Thе parties before this Court, and others not involved in this appeal, entered into an agreement in May 1994 which settled certain litigation among thе parties over golf course property in Cobb County; the settlement agreement was incorporated verbatim into and made part of the order of the trial court in June 1994. Rather than resolving the parties’ conflicts, the settlement judgment has been the source of further litigation, 1 leading to the entry of two orders which are the subject of the appeals here. R.R.R. Limited Partnership appeals from the trial court’s order appointing a permanent receiver for the golf course in Case No. S96A1827 and from the order holding it in contempt of court on numerous grounds in Case No. S96A1828. We affirm both rulings.
Case No. S96A1827
1. The trial court’s order set forth in great detail the factual basis for its determination that it was necessary to appoint a permanent receiver to carry out the terms of the trial court’s orders and to protect the rights of appellee Cumberland Creek Properties, Inc. (“CCP”), the entity holding an option under the settlement judgment to purchase the golf course. Based on our review of the recоrd on appeal, we find no manifest abuse of the trial court’s discretion in appointing a permanent receiver. See
Kruzel v. Leeds Bldg. Products,
*758 Case No. S96A1828
2.
In its first argument regаrding the trial court’s contempt order, appellant challenges the fact that the trial court allowed corporate appellee CCP to be represented in court in a contempt attachment by Ronald Leventhal, an officer and member of CCP’s board of direсtors, who is not an attorney,
2
in violation of OCGA § 15-19-52.
3
This Court in
Eckles v. Atlanta Tech. Group,
3. As has been long recognized, “the discretion of the judges of the superior courts in all matters pertaining to contempt of their authority and mandates will never be controlled unless grossly abused, [cits.]”
Hayden v. Phinizy,
*759
Appellant also challenges a number of the trial court’s rulings, arguing that the rulings constituted improper awards of damages to appellees not allowable in a contempt action.
4
We do not agree with appellаnt’s categorization of these rulings as an award of damages or as penalties or fines for contempt. In no instance was appellant penalized over and above the bare minimum required to remedy appellant’s failure to comply with the terms of the settlement judgment. Aрpellant’s reliance on
Carey Canada, Inc. v. Hinely,
4. Arguments raised by appellant but not addressed in this opinion have been reviewed and found meritless.
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
In its order holding R.R.R. Limited Partnеrship in contempt, the trial court noted that it has conducted 11 hearings and issued 13 orders (in addition to scheduling and administrative orders).
Leventhal alsо participated in the contempt proceeding in his individual capacity.
OCGA § 15-19-52 provides
Nothing contained in this article [regarding the regulation of the рractice of law] shall prevent any corporation ... from doing any act or acts set out in Code Section 15-19-50 [defining the practicе of law in Georgia] to which the persons are a party; but, in preparing and filing affidavits in attachments and prosecuting such proceedings, it shаll be unlawful for the plaintiffs to act through any agent or employee who is not a duly licensed attorney at law.
Appellant contends the triаl court awarded appellees damages in that the trial court (1) is requiring appellant to reduce the option price of the golf course commensurate to the revenues lost as a result of appellant’s failure to comply with the settlement judgment; (2) is requiring appellant to pay a bill it was obligated under the settlement judgment to pay; (3) is requiring appellant to pay certain sums to two golf course employees whose hours were improperly reduced, or else be subject to civil or criminal contempt attachment; (4) that the trial court is improperly extending the interval for CCP to exercise its option to purchase the golf course for a period of time commensurate with appellant’s delay in completing construction of the course; (5) and, finally, is improperly awarding appellees damages by providing that appellant could purge itself of contempt from its failure to comply with the construction requirements in the settlement judgment (in that appellаnt failed to construct properly the turn at the ninth and tenth golf holes and to correct the physical deficiencies in appellant’s non-conforming layout of the course) by paying sums to the permanent receiver so that the receiver could correct the deficiencies.