Gardner v. Gardner, S02A1477.

• Decision Date: 10 February 2003
• Docket Number: No. S02A1477.,S02A1477.
• Citation: 576 S.E.2d 857,276 Ga. 189
• Parties: GARDNER et al. v. GARDNER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

576 S.E.2d 857

276 Ga. 189

GARDNER et al. v. GARDNER.

No. S02A1477.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

February 10, 2003.

Kirbo & Kendrick, Ben Kirbo, Bainbridge, for appellant.

Altman & Lane, V. Gail Lane, Thomasville, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Justice.

Husband Jackie Wendell Gardner filed a complaint for divorce on the ground that his 24-year marriage to wife Brenda Culverson Gardner was irretrievably broken. Husband sought custody of the one minor child, child support, and an equitable distribution of marital property. His verified complaint specified that the only property acquired by the parties during the course of the marriage consisted of: "Corporate stock in SGF, Inc.; corporate stock in State Line Cooler, Inc.; [and] corporate stock in Sowega Cotton Gin, Inc." Husband appended a financial affidavit to the complaint which showed his gross monthly income to be $4,583, and he listed the stock in the three corporations as his only assets. The non-liquidated value of the stock was stated to be just under five million dollars.

Wife filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce on the ground of adultery, and she sought alimony as well as equitable division of the marital property, including the marital residence. Her financial affidavit showed no individual income or assets.

Wife thereafter sought an order from the court allowing her to join as defendants by counterclaim, two of the three corporations listed in the complaint. As grounds therefor, she alleged that subsequent to the filing of her answer and counterclaim she learned that said corporations hold title to all of the assets of the parties including the marital residence, and that husband is the sole stockholder and director of the corporations. She asserted that the corporations are subject to the jurisdiction of the court and that joinder is required to grant complete relief on the counterclaim so as to effectuate an equitable division of marital property and to adjudicate her claim for alimony. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court ordered that SGF, Inc. and State Line Cooler, Inc. be made defendants to the counterclaim; thereafter, service of process was perfected on the two corporations. The trial court certified its joinder order for immediate review. We granted husband's application for interlocutory appeal to determine whether in ordering the joinder of the corporations as party-defendants, the trial court erred in failing to limit their participation to wife's claims for the equitable division of marital property. Because under the unusual circumstances of this case, any marital assets or individual assets of husband are entirely subsumed in the corporate stock, we hold that joinder was proper in order to adjudicate the marital claims. Accordingly, we affirm.

1. OCGA § 9-11-13(h) provides: "When the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim ... the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants as provided in this chapter, if jurisdiction of them can be obtained." The foregoing is read in conjunction with OCGA § 9-11-19(a)(1) which provides that "[a] person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if: (1) [i]n his absence complete relief cannot be afforded among those who are already parties." The common thread in both statutes is that joinder be predicated upon granting "complete relief." "This provision `complete relief' embraces the desirability of avoiding repetitive lawsuits on essentially the same facts or subject matter, as well as the desirability of joining those in whose absence there might be a grant of hollow or partial relief to the parties before the court." Co-op Mtg. Investments Assoc. v. Pendley, 134 Ga.App. 236, 238(1), 214 S.E.2d 572 (1975). See also McCabe v. Lundell, 199 Ga.App. 639(1), 405 S.E.2d 693 (1991). This rule is equally applicable in a divorce case:

Because equity seeks always to do complete justice, third parties are properly joined in a divorce action so as to facilitate resolution of the spouses' marital claims. [Cits.] Such a claim against a non-spouse has always been considered an integral part of the divorce action to which it was joined for that limited purpose.

Brown v. Brown, 271 Ga. 887, 888, 525 S.E.2d 359 (2000).

At a hearing on the...