THRASHER-STAROBIN v. STAROBIN
S16A0537
Supreme Court of Georgia
April 4, 2016
Reconsideration dismissed May 9, 2016.
299 Ga. 12, 785 SE2d 302
NAHMIAS, Justice.
Bianca Thrasher-Starobin, pro se.
NAHMIAS, Justice.
Bianca Thrasher-Starobin (Wife) and Michael Starobin (Husband) were married in August 2009 and divorced in November 2013. They have one child together, and the divorce decree granted Husband primary physical custody, with Wife having visitation as set out in the parenting plan incorporated into the decree. On October 10, 2014, Wife filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Husband had violated the parenting plan by refusing to give her visitation and refusing to let her speak to their son once a day. On December 8, 2014, Husband filed an answer and a counterclaim for contempt, alleging among other things that Wife had not undergone the psychological evaluation required by the divorce decree and that she had refused to pay child support and her portion of daycare expenses.1 Husband also requested attorney fees with respect to the counterclaim, but he did not state a statutory basis for the fees request. After an evidentiary hearing on December 11, 2014, at which both parties were represented by counsel, the trial court entered an amended final order on February 10, 2015. In the only portion of the order relevant to this appeal, the court awarded Husband $6,000 in attorney fees “based on [Wife]‘s baseless litigious actions against him.”
Wife, now representing herself, filed an application seeking to appeal the order, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her additional time to hire an attorney for the hearing, in granting Husband a continuance before his attorney filed an entry of appearance, and in granting Husband attorney fees because the award was excessive and the evidence did not support such an award under any statute. This Court granted the application only on the attorney fees issue.
In its order, the trial court failed to state a statutory basis for awarding the attorney fees and, although the order‘s reference to Wife‘s “baseless litigious actions” implies that the award was made under
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Thompson, C. J., Hines, P. J., Benham, Hunstein, and Blackwell, JJ., and Judge Robert S. Reeves concur. Melton, J., not participating.
WYCHE v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
S15G1621
Supreme Court of Georgia
May 9, 2016
299 Ga. 14, 785 SE2d 897
The Boston Law Firm, Russell M. Boston, Wendy S. Boston, for appellant.
Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Kathleen M. Pacious, Deputy Attorney General, Loretta L. Pinkston, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Claude M. Sitton, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, see Georgia Dept. of Transp. v. Wyche, 332 Ga. App. 596 (774 SE2d 169) (2015), and we directed the parties to submit briefs upon the following question:
Did the Court of Appeals properly find that the plaintiff‘s negligence claims against the Department of Transportation fell within the inspections and/or licensing exceptions to the Georgia Tort Claims Act‘s waiver of sovereign immunity, see
OCGA § 50-21-24 (8) and(9) ?
After briefing and oral argument, however, the parties reached a settlement, and the parties now have filed a “motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal.” Construing the motion as a motion to vacate the writ of certiorari and withdraw the petition for a writ of certiorari, we grant the motion, vacate the writ of certiorari in this case, and allow the petition to be withdrawn.
Writ of certiorari vacated. All the Justices concur.