*1 complaint pursuant and, Court, is affirmed Rule 6 of this an imposed penalty against $2,500 additional frivolous attorney. Trust and

Appeal penalty imposed dismissed and in CaseNumber S05A1899. penalty imposed in Case Number S05A1900. affirmed except specially. concur, Sears, J., All the Justices C. who concurs concurring specially. Chief SEARS, imposed by

Moreton Rolleston deserves the sanctions majority reprehensible in this frivolous and conduct has hardship opponents litigation. my caused needless opinion, for his In disgraced legal profession however, Rolleston has also generally, thereby privilege practicing and has forfeited the law in Accordingly, this State. ity this Court should utilize its inherent author- to order he be disbarred. 2005. November

Decided Rolleston, Jr., Moreton

Shelby appellee. Outlaw, A. S05A1911. WESTMORELAND v. WESTMORELAND et al. Justice. Thompson, Charles Westmoreland was an of Rome. As employee, city packages, he was enrolled in includ- several ing Georgia Municipal Employees System Benefit Retirement Lynn January 16, Plan. Charles married Brenda Westmoreland on During marriage, child, Westmoreland, 1988. Allie Nicole designated pre-retirement beneficiary born. Charles Allie Nicole the employment-related other his retirement benefits. Charles 30, 2000, and Brenda were divorced on October proceedings divorce it Allie was established that Charles was not biological Nicole’s father. January 8, 2001,

On Charles went to the human resource and told a human resource that he employment-related on all his benefits from requested brother, Allie Nicole to his James Westmoreland. He required changing, documents three documents on which he indicated for three of presented his benefits. with a form for his retirement died on March by city. employed it discovered that the while the When was executed, was never form for Charles’ At that claimed to be both Allie Nicole and James point, Municipal Employees city, along Georgia Benefits Association, filed action. hearing, evidentiary superior court found benefits

After an *2 plan paid reasoning James, to that from the retirement should be beneficiary change the should not be subverted Charles’ intent to employee give simply office failed to human resources beneficiary agree change plan. for that We and Charles the of form affirm. employee that an

The ofRome Retirement Handbook states may beneficiary any change the for his retirement benefit at time pension prior by giving written notice to the committee to retirement specifically requested, secretary. It is that Charles never completed, necessary change beneficiary or the form to his pension secretary plan. Nor did the ever receive under the committee change beneficiary notice that wished to on this written Charles city’s depart- However, Charles went to the human resources change ment, he to on all of his stated completed then benefits, asked for the forms to do all forms complete given relating him. The reason he did the form to to the at issue is because the human resources mistakenly gave him. never it to

Regulations of benefit which association method of change complied change of must with to make (86 107) 356, effectual. See Faircloth v. 211 Ga. 359 SE2d (1955). regulations solely However, these are made for the benefit and protection Thus, Id. of the where the association stands association. indifferently parties regu- action, as to in these merely possible as an intent lations serve indication of permitted powers equitable insured, and the court is to use its determine which claimant should receive benefit. See id. at (2) (153 194) (1930); Wheat, 359-360; Baldwin 170 449 Ga. SE App. (191 587) (1972). Mitchell, 126 SE2d Mitchell Ga. 664 expression change beneficiary intent to without Mere some change. Faircloth, overt is not See act sufficient effectuate supra App. (2) (319 88) 360; Britt, at Maxwell v. 171 230 SE2d Ga. substantially (1984). “If, however, the insured all has done that required him, do, or that he is able to to effect a all all is a that remains to be done ministerial action of though association, the details are not will take effect completed (Punctuation omitted.) before the death of the insured.” Engineers Assn., &c. 138 Smith v. Locomotive Mut. Ins. Life

35 supra (76 (1912). supra Faircloth, 360; Baldwin, also at SE See (2); App. Woolever, Hinkle 249 Ga. 251-252 supra (2001); (2); App. Belote, Maxwell, at 230 Belote v. 167 Ga. (306SE2d24) (1983); supra “[e]quity Mitchell, at 665. That is because considers that done which to be done directs relief its accordingly.” OCGA§ 23-1-8. performed by going

Charles an overt act to the human requesting necessary resource the forms beneficiary. He succeeded given proper Thus, all which was forms. Charles he could do to effectuate a from Allie Nicole to James. Com- pare (2) (decedent merely Maxwell, at 230 change beneficiary). But for the mistake of the human resources complete compliance would have been requirements superior It follows equitable invoking powers directing court did not err in paid Charles’ retirement benefits be James. All the Justices concur. affirmed. *3 concurring. CARLEY, fully judgment

I concur the the court, affirmance of trial separately majority recognizes, that, write to reiterate as the clearly Coleman, Faircloth City dispute mandates our conclusion in this Since does case. not payable position not retirement benefits are and does take a them, as to which should claimant receive Mr. Westmoreland’s failure request to make a written ling. for a is beneficiaries not control- “ ‘ equities “In case . . . the contestants will ’” compared. [Cits.]” Coleman, Faircloth 360. If “ evidence showed that Mr. ‘his Westmoreland mere inten- ” beneficiary.’ not a would] suffice to work tion^ supra. Coleman, more, Faircloth v. he did employment- undertook to of all his various related benefits from the child to his brother. He was able objective achieve that did not him requisite form for ofhis retirement benefits. Where, here,

makes the effort make the and does all he can do . . “An intention is established. . equitable principle applicable in this case contained in the equity regards maxim that as done that which to be done . . . .” supra. Coleman, [Mr.Westmoreland] “Since substan-

Faircloth v. applying tially the above could to all he principles [trial] court did not facts awarding to his brother. Faircloth err in” supra at 361. 21, 2005.

Decided November Douglas Slade, Sr., D. appellees. Marion, Burkhalter,

Burkhalter, Jr., F. Pierce & Albert v. THE STATE. S05A1959. DELANOVAL (622 SE2d Justice. Delanoval

Melton, Segundo appeals his conviction for aggravated assault, and of a knife the commission felony, contending support that the evidence was insufficient below, affirm the verdict.1 For reasons set forth we conviction. light verdict, the in the favorable to the record Viewed most Williams, that, on October Robert who lived in the shows same girlfriend, rooming loudly argue Delanoval, house as started to with his Anqunette mother, Barber, Del-

Corina and her Barber. boyfriend, Anqunette anoval, entered who was Barber’s the room occurring, stepped argument between Williams and where the Anqunette stop arguing. Barber, them and shouted at Williams room, told to leave but remained and cursed Delanoval slapped Delanoval, their at Williams. Williams then confronta- exchange hallway. During words, into the tion moved heated room, drawer, re-entered his took a serrated knife from Delanoval walked back thereby hallway, chest, into the stabbed Williams away puncturing his heart. Delanoval then ran from the apprehended boarding hand, house with knife in his and he was approximately in a At the time of two months later homeless shelter. *4 stabbing. arrest, admitted to was filed on for decision trial, during aggravated felony murder, felony. Delanoval was convicted Delanoval was indicted on Delanoval’s motion commission assault, July 21,2004. the briefs. of a possession consecutive five His appeal, for April on March new trial was felony of a docketed in this Court on knife years 2000 for 15,2002, during denied on aggravated crimes of malice commission July assault, 14,2004, August sentenced to life a knife of a murder, and his felony. 8,2005, possession Following notice of felony imprisonment commission submitted of a murder, knife jury