How Getting Divorced Can Take Longer Than Building a $131M Courthouse
"What we have here is a very complicated divorce case," said the husband's attorney, R. Scott Berryman of Berryman Family Law.
January 08, 2020 at 04:44 PM
4 minute read
The divorce battle that provided the first oral arguments in the new Nathan Deal Judicial Center Tuesday has been going on for longer than the construction of the six-story, $131 million home for the Georgia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
The job of telling that long story before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals fell to William V. "Bill" Custer of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner. He represents Debra Gray King, founder of the Atlanta Center for Cosmetic Dentistry in Sandy Springs. She filed in October 2016 for a divorce from Sandy Springs lawyer Daniel Rosson King. They had been married for 25 years and have three adult children.
Custer kept the story concise and focused on the key legal question: Was Fulton County Superior Court Judge Belinda Edwards wrong to throw out an arbitration award by Senior Judge Melvin Westmoreland?
"They wisely chose to arbitrate," Custer said of his client and her husband. "They wisely chose Judge Westmoreland."
Custer's brief noted that the retired Atlanta judge has presided over thousands of divorces and is certified as a mediator and arbitrator. But he's had enough of this one.
"The parties thereby received precisely what they bargained for in this case—a speedy, fair resolution of their property dispute by a skilled arbitrator with years of experience deciding divorce cases," Custer said in his brief for the wife. But the husband "was dissatisfied with the result—despite being awarded over $6,000,000—an amount derived almost entirely from his wife's successful cosmetic dental practice. Having voluntarily participated in the arbitration, and then being sorely disappointed with its outcome, appellee thereafter engaged in an effort to sabotage the arbitration process and undo the Award. Appellee denigrated the performance and smeared the reputation of Judge Westmoreland, attacked and disparaged opposing counsel, and claimed his wife, Dr. King, had engaged in fraud. So vitriolic was the attack that Judge Westmoreland ultimately recused himself from further participation in the proceedings."
The husband's attorney, R. Scott Berryman of Berryman Family Law, told the judges that Westmoreland was biased and admitted it when he recused. Berryman asked the panel to send the case back to the trial court for assignment to a new arbitrator.
"What we have here is a very complicated divorce case," Berryman said. "We have valuation issues regarding very valuable property."
Neither lawyer mentioned numbers in front of the judges, but the husband's brief raised issues about $1.4 million in working capital, valuations of $1.3 million worth of real estate and $800,000 in bank accounts.
At the time the divorce was filed, the old, empty, sinking state archives building occupied the site at the corner of Capitol Avenue and Memorial Drive where Custer stood to tell the tale. It wasn't until five months later, on a cold morning in March 2017, that the archives building suddenly disappeared in a spectacular implosion broadcast live.
The couple met for mediation in August 2017, the same month judges and justices put on hard hats and picked up shovels to break ground for their new building on a rainy late summer day. The groundbreaking went smoother than the mediation. The couple spent the entire day with the judge. "But the mediation ended with no resolution on any issues," the wife's lawyers said in their brief. They met again the next day, with the same result. On the third day, they agreed to binding arbitration, which they concluded on June 1, 2018. The judge issued a final arbitration award in August 2018—three months before the new building was topped out.
The appellate courts generally issue rulings before their next term ends—which means by the time the current appeal is resolved, the new judicial building will be about six months old.
The case is King v. King, No. A20A0034.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readOn The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Productivity Suite Startup Macro Announces $12 Million Funding Round
- 2Rudy Giuliani Loses Bid to Dismiss $1.3 Million Davidoff Hutcher & Citron Suit Over Unpaid Legal Fees
- 3Discovery Dispute: Investigated Judge Boxed Out by Work Product Doctrine
- 4Florida Supreme Court Paves Way for Attorney Fees Over $100k in Land Dispute
- 5How My Postpartum Depression Led to Launching My Firm’s Parental Leave Coaching Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250