Wright v. YoungWright v. Young
This appeal arises from the trial court‘s denial of appellant Willie Wright‘s motion to vacate and set aside the October 26, 2010 final order and decree of divorce dissolving his marriage to appellee Kenya Young.1 According to appellant, who is incarcerated and acting pro se in this appeal, he never received notice of the final divorce decree. Appellant avers he first learned of the final divorce decree on October 2, 2014, in response to a September 2014 inquiry he made to the clerk of the trial court about the status of the divorce proceedings. Upon learning of the final divorce decree, appellant filed a motion to set aside on October 23, 2014. Without making any findings as to notice, the trial court denied the motion on November 6, 2014.
... [I]t shall be the duty of the judge to file his or her decision with the clerk of the court in which the cases are pending and to notify the attorney or attorneys of the losing party of his or her decision. Said notice shall not be required if such notice has been waived pursuant to subsection (a) of Code Section 9-11-5.
Although
The record does not show, however, whether the trial court notified appellant of the final decree of divorce. In addition, when it denied the motion to set aside the divorce decree, the trial court did not make any findings on the issue of notice. In such circumstances, the appellate courts have held that the order denying the losing party‘s motion to set aside must be vacated and the case remanded so that the trial court may make findings on the issue of whether notice was provided. See Pierce v. State, 289 Ga. 893 (2) (717 SE2d 202) (2011); Woods v. Savannah Restaurant Corp., 267 Ga. App. 387, 388 (599 SE2d 338) (2004).
“[T]he issue is not whether the losing party had knowledge that judgment was entered, but rather whether the duty imposed on the court in
Judgment vacated and case remanded. All the Justices concur.