Kremer v. Tea Party Patriots Inc.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding the defendant in an underlying declaratory judgment action in contempt on the basis that she had not taken all the necessary steps to deliver administrative control of the enumerated websites to the plaintiff.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Amy Kremer appeals the trial court’s order finding her in contempt of a consent order entered in a declaratory judgment action filed by Tea Party Patriots, Inc. “TPP”. “The standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to cite a party for contempt is . . . the ‘any evidence’ standard. Consequently, if there is any evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that its order was or was not violated, we are without power to disturb the judgment absent an abuse of discretion.” Citations and footnote omitted. Harrison v. CGU Ins. Co. , 269 Ga. App. 549, 554-555 604 SE2d 615 2004.

The underlying dispute arose among the founders of TPP, a non-profit “grassroots movement of Americans who favor free market economics, fiscal responsibility, and limited government.” TPP filed the declaratory judgment action against Kremer to determine ownership of the “Tea Party Patriots” trademark and various associated websites and internet accounts collectively referred to herein as “the Intellectual Property”. Kremer counterclaimed alleging claims for misappropriation and conversion of the Intellectual Property, libel, slander, unjust enrichment and punitive damages. After the trial court entered an interlocutory injunction against Kremer, the parties reached an agreement regarding the use of the Intellectual Property pending the resolution of the lawsuit. The trial court entered a consent order memorializing this agreement on December 9, 2009 the “Consent Order”.

Kremer v. Tea Party Patriots Inc.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding the defendant in an underlying declaratory judgment action in contempt on the basis that she had not taken all the necessary steps to deliver administrative control of the enumerated websites to the plaintiff.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report