Elizabeth Ann Seiz Wife and Thomas Seiz Husband were married on May 22, 1981, and divorced pursuant to a December 16, 2010 Final Decree. During the pending divorce proceedings, Wife added Husband’s company, Seiz Joint Venture, LLC SJV, as a party to the proceedings. In its Final Decree, the trial court awarded Wife half of Husband’s one-third ownership interest in SJV as a marital asset. SJV filed an application to appeal, which this Court granted pursuant to the now-expired Pilot Project, by which this Court granted all non-frivolous applications for discretionary review from a final judgment and decree of divorce.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. The record reveals that, on January 1, 1988, Husband and his two brothers formed a general partnership called Seiz Joint Venture #1. Wife filed her divorce action in the Superior Court of Polk County on June 14, 2007. Pursuant to a Standing Order for the Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit, which includes the Superior Court of Polk County, “all parties in each divorce or domestic relations case” are “enjoined and restrained from selling, encumbering, contracting to sell, or otherwise disposing of . . . any of the property belonging to the parties,” unless such a transaction is conducted in the “ordinary course of business.” On February 1, 2008, Husband and his brothers formed SJV, a company in which Husband held a one-third interest, and in which his two brothers held the remaining two-thirds interest. On February 7, 2008, Seiz Joint Venture #1 transferred to SJV certain real property in Cobb County valued between $3.2 and $4.6 million. On March 3, 2008, Wife filed a motion for contempt and a motion to add SJV as a party to the pending divorce proceedings. On January 14, 2010, the trial court entered an order finding that SJV should be added to the proceedings, “not as an indispensable party, but as a party needed for a full and complete adjudication.” After trial, the trial court entered a Final Decree finding that Husband’s interest in Seiz Joint Venture #1 was marital property, and that, therefore, Husband’s interest in SJV was “a marital asset subject to equitable division.” In this regard, the trial court further ordered that Husband shall immediately transfer to Wife one-half 1/2 of his ownership interest in and to Seiz Joint Venture, #1, the general partnership. Husband shall immediately transfer to Wife one-half 1/2 of his ownership in and to SJV . . . . SJV shall cooperate in the immediate transfer of this 1/6 ownership interest to Wife and shall execute such documents as shall be reasonable and necessary to effectuate this transfer. SJV shall make distributions directly to Wife as one sixth 1/6 owner. 1. SJV contends that the trial court erred by allowing Wife to add it as a party to the divorce proceedings. However, here, there is evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that, after Wife filed for divorce, Husband violated the Standing Order for the Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit by transferring the Cobb County property from Seiz Joint Venture #1 to SJV.2 Based on this transfer of property that was properly the subject of the divorce proceedings, the trial court was authorized to add SJV as a party in order to ensure that Wife might be afforded complete relief in the case. See, e.g., Degarmo v. Degarmo , 269 Ga. 480, 481 2 499 SE2d 317 1998 where there was some evidence in divorce case to support the conclusion that Husband and business partner fraudulently caused all stock in corporation to be issued in their name to the exclusion of Wife, trial court properly added corporation and business partner as parties to divorce action “in order that complete relief might be afforded among those who were already parties” citation and punctuation omitted.3 See also OCGA § 9-11-19 a 1.
2. SJV argues that, through its Final Decree awarding Wife a one-sixth ownership interest in the company, the trial court improperly re-wrote SJV’s Operating Agreement and illegally required SJV’s current members to admit Wife as a full voting member of SJV. SJV is incorrect.
