Following the trial court’s denial of her motion for a new trial regarding her divorce from Jason McLendon Husband, Amanda McLendon Wife filed an application for discretionary appeal. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 34, we granted Wife’s application and posed the following questions: 1 Did the trial court commit reversible error in its determinations on custody, child support, or any other issue addressed in the parties’ Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce; 2 Did the trial court err in awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9 15 14 b, where it actually granted part of the relief sought in Wife’s motion for new trial/motion for reconsideration For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1. The record shows that Wife and Husband were divorced by a final decree entered in May of 2013. The parties have one minor child, and the decree awards primary physical custody to Husband, with joint legal custody. Wife has visitation every other weekend and on some weeknights. During the summer months, Wife has primary custody, and Husband has visitation rights. Wife is required to pay Husband $940.89 per month during the school year, and, in the summer, no child support is paid by either party. Following entry of the decree, Wife filed a motion for new trial and/or motion for reconsideration. In her written motion, Wife raised issues regarding custody. During the hearing on Wife’s motion, she orally raised issues regarding items of personal property she had left in Husband’s home and certain issues with the parenting plan. In response, the trial court issued an order denying Wife’s motion with regard to custody and a supplemental order modifying the property division and parenting plan. Also, pursuant to OCGA 9-15-14 b, the trial court awarded approximately $4,000 in attorney fees to Husband, finding that the motion for new trial was brought, at least in part, for purposes of delay. Wife now challenges these rulings.
