A Georgia divorce judge has broad discretion over how a case is tried, and an appellate court will rarely disturb a ruling that falls inside it.
Discretion Has to Be Exercised, Not Just Held
In Coleman v. Coleman, 281 Ga. 101 (2006), a trial court reset a divorce for a final hearing and ordered that “each party seeking redress from this Court must be present at said time in order to be granted any redress from this Court.” The Georgia Supreme Court reversed. Trial courts “are vested with a broad discretion in the conduct of trials,” but neither the order nor the record “demonstrates an exercise of such discretion by articulating a basis for the decision.” Where an appellate court cannot tell whether the judge exercised discretion at all, the case is sent back for a new order explaining the ruling.
How Far It Reaches
In Bayless v. Bayless, 280 Ga. 153 (2006), a husband missed the final hearing and blamed a Colorado snowstorm. He was seen at a party in Atlanta that evening, and it was the third court date he had missed. The trial court struck his answer and counterclaim and barred him from offering evidence, while still letting his attorney cross-examine his wife and present argument. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a trial court may impose such a sanction because of “the inherent power of the trial court who is charged with the efficient clearing of cases upon the court’s docket.”
The Court added that the right of a spouse to defend a divorce without filing an answer “cannot be used to excuse the disregard of other procedural rules of Georgia trial courts.”
Contact Us
This post is a quick overview of the law and is not intended as legal advice. Please feel free to contact our office for a consultation if you have questions about this or any other legal aspects regarding your case!