Fuller v. Fuller

The trial court's ex parte communications with the husband's attorney may have technically violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, U.S.C.R. 4.1 and the Georgia Rules of Professional Responsibility, however, the communications did not result in harm to the wife.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Roger Lee Fuller Husband brought this divorce action against Patricia Jennings Fuller Wife. A temporary order was entered, and Wife subsequently moved that Husband be held in contempt of that order. The case was tried, and the trial court entered a final divorce judgment and an order denying the contempt motion. Thereafter, the trial court denied a motion for new trial, and Wife applied for a discretionary appeal. Pursuant to our Pilot Project in divorce cases, we granted the application because we concluded that it was not frivolous. 1. After trial, each party submitted proposed orders. On motion for new trial, Wife complained that the trial court apparently adopted Husband’s proposed orders verbatim. Because the proposals were not in the record, Wife requested some clarification from the trial court at the end of the hearing on the motion for new trial. The trial court explained that, rather than adopt Husband’s proposed orders verbatim, it had reviewed both parties’ submissions and instructed Husband’s counsel to make certain changes in his, basically to include provisions which Wife’s attorney had requested in her proposal. On appeal, Wife contends that the trial court erred by engaging in an ex parte conversation with Husband’s lawyer and entering its orders pursuant to that communication.

Even when a trial court adopts a proposed order verbatim, the findings of fact therein are those of the court and may be reversed only if they are clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U. S. 564, 572 II 105 SC 1504, 84 LE2d 518 1985; Jefferson v. Zant , 263 Ga. 316, 317 1 431 SE2d 110 1993. The initial submission of proposed orders in this case clearly was not reversible error, especially since both parties participated, their attorneys had not previously been informed of the trial court’s decision, and the orders were not adopted verbatim. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , supra; Jefferson v. Zant , supra.

Fuller v. Fuller

The trial court's ex parte communications with the husband's attorney may have technically violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, U.S.C.R. 4.1 and the Georgia Rules of Professional Responsibility, however, the communications did not result in harm to the wife.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report