In January 2009, before Henry Cook’s term as chairman of the Randolph County Board of Education had expired, three members of the Board, Don Smith, Dymple McDonald, and James Mock hereinafter collectively the “Board members”, selected Mock to serve as the chairman of the Board. On March 18, 2009, the Governor signed House Bill 563 “H.B. 563″ into law, which was a local law that reconstituted the Board and provided for procedures for the selection of a chairperson and a vice chairperson. On April 9, 2009, Cook sued the Board members, claiming that H.B. 563 was unconstitutional as applied to him because the statute sought to change his term of office as chairman of the Board, and claiming that the Board members had exceeded their authority by attempting to replace him as chairman. On April 30, 2009, the trial court entered a temporary injunction to prevent the enforcement of H.B. 563, and on June 16, 2009, the trial court entered an order continuing the injunction. In the June 16 order, the trial court also stated that: It further appearing from the verified pleadings that previous Boards of Education of Randolph County have adopted certain policies and procedures that are contrary to our basic tenets of government and that are designed to prevent free legislation in matters; therefore, until further order of the Court it is ordered as follows: 1. Any member of the Board of Education of Randolph County shall have the right to include an item on the Agenda as same is defined by O.C.G.A. Section 50-14-1 and by current policy. 2. Any ruling by the chairman may be appealed by any member of the Board of Education to the members present at such meeting and a decision of the majority of the Board of Education voting on such matter shall prevail on said matter. Based on actions taken by Cook and Bobby Jenkins, the superintendent of the Board, to prevent certain items from being placed on the agenda or voted on by members of the Board at a subsequent Board meeting, on July 20, 2009, the Board members moved to have Cook held in contempt for violating the terms of the June 16 order. The Board also made a separate motion to have Jenkins held in contempt. Following a joint contempt hearing involving both Cook and Jenkins, both men were found in contempt for violating the June 16 order, and Cook was ordered to spend four days in jail. Before beginning his four day sentence, however, Cook filed a notice of appeal and a motion for supersedeas. Although the trial court initially denied the motion for supersedeas, it then granted the motion, and on August 4, 2009, the Court of Appeals dismissed as moot Cook’s petition for a writ of supersedeas. On August 27, 2009, the Board members filed a motion to vacate the trial court’s June 16 order, and, following a joint contempt hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that 1 Cook had no vested property right in the position of chairman of the Board, 2 H.B. 563 was constitutional, and 3 the previously entered injunction of June 16, 2009 would be lifted. On appeal, Cook contends, primarily, that the trial court erred in holding him in contempt for violating the terms of the June 16, 2009 order; and that the trial court erred in concluding that H.B. 563 was constitutional as applied to him. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by holding Cook in contempt, but the trial court did err in concluding that H.B. 563 was constitutional as applied to Cook. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
1. Cook contends that the trial court erred by failing to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law in its June 16, 2009 order. However, after the trial court entered its order, Cook failed to allege any error in the sufficiency of the trial court’s findings of fact or conclusions of law or request that the trial court amend its judgment to separately make such findings or conclusions. As a result, he has waived the right to challenge the sufficiency of the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52. Footnote omitted. City of East Point v. Jordan , 300 Ga. App. 891, 893 2 686 SE2d 471 2009. See also OCGA § 9-11-52 c “Upon motion made not later than 20 days after entry of judgment, the court may make or amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. . . . Failure of the losing party to move therefor after judgment shall constitute a waiver of any ground of appeal which requires consideration thereof”.
