Autrey v. Autrey
| Decision Date | 22 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. S10F1806.,S10F1806. |
| Citation | 702 S.E.2d 878,288 Ga. 283,10 FCDR 3795 |
| Parties | AUTREY v. AUTREY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Hill-Macdonald, Vic B. Hill, Brad E. Macdonald, Alan C. Manheim, Marietta, for appellant.
Judy C. King, Lawrenceville, for appellee.
Timothy Autrey (husband) appeals from the final judgment and decree of divorce from Kerrie Autrey (wife). He contends the trialcourt erred by denying his motion to dismiss the complaint for divorce on venue grounds and denying his motion for new trial. We affirm.
Wife filed a complaint for divorce in Gwinnett County Superior Court against husband in October 2008. Two days later, husband was served with process at the marital residence in Gwinnett County where the couple had lived for more than 20 years. Husband filed a motion to dismiss for lack of venue, asserting that while he maintained a residence in Gwinnett County, his domicile and primary residence was in Cobb County and he was entitled to be sued there. 1 The court denied husband's motion, and the proceedings continued. After a lengthy bench trial which included the testimony of a forensic accountant, the trial court entered a final judgment awarding primary physical custody of the children to wife, attributing to husbandmonthly gross income of $12,500, and directing husband to pay monthly child support. The trial court denied husband's motion for new trial, and husband thereafter sought, and this Court granted, discretionary review pursuant to the pilot project for family law cases. Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133, 587 S.E.2d 600 (2003).
1. Husband contends the complaint for divorce should have been dismissed for improper venue because he was a resident of Cobb, not Gwinnett, County. A trial court's findings of fact as to residence and domicile will not be disturbed on appeal if there is any evidence to support them. Smith v. Smith, 248 Ga. 268(1), 282 S.E.2d 324 (1981); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 233 Ga. 799, 213 S.E.2d 841 (1975). There is evidence in the record to support the trial judge's finding that husband's domicile remained in Gwinnett County during the six months prior to the filing of the divorce complaint, including evidence that husband continued to reside and maintain his possessions in the marital home until he was served with the complaint for divorce. Accordingly, venue was proper in Gwinnett County.
2. Husband contends the trial court erred by finding that his income was $12,500 per month for purposes of calculating child support. See OCGA § 19-6-15(b) (). Langley v. Langley, 279 Ga. 374, 377(2), 613 S.E.2d 614 (2005). The record reveals that in 2006 and 2007, husband, a self-employed home builder, earned income of $373,000 and $806,000 respectively. There was also evidence of large distributions to husband from his business in 2008 and husband's transfer of $125,000 to a newly created company owned by his brother on the day divorce papers were served. At the time of trial, the parties also owned several residential lots in Sugarloaf Country Club and a home built by husband with an appraised value of between two and three million dollars. In addition, the court had for its consideration husband's own domestic relations financial affidavit which attributed to husband annual gross income of $150,000 per year. In light of the record evidence and giving the appropriate deference to the trial court's findings of fact and its credibility determinations, we cannot say the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous, as the income level attributed to husband was within the range of evidence provided to the trial court.
3. We similarly find no error in the trial court's deviation from the presumptive amount of child support as calculated under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Sanders
...and there was no evidence adduced at the hearing below to support a finding of change in the father's income).8 Autrey v. Autrey, 288 Ga. 283, 284–85(2), 702 S.E.2d 878 (2010) (punctuation omitted).9 See, e.g., Dyals v. Dyals, 281 Ga. 894, 895(1), 644 S.E.2d 138 (2007).10 Appling v. Tatum, ......
-
Daniel v. Daniel
...we will not disturb the trial court's factual findings in this regard if there is any evidence to support them. Autrey v. Autrey , 288 Ga. 283, 284-285 (2), 702 S.E.2d 878 (2010) ; see also Calloway-Spencer v. Spencer , 355 Ga. App 743, 746 (3), 845 S.E.2d 715 (2020) ("We will not disturb a......
-
Caldwell v. Meadows
...support the trial court's finding, this court will not find there was an abuse of discretion.” (Citation omitted.) Autrey v. Autrey, 288 Ga. 283, 285(4), 702 S.E.2d 878 (2010). Similarly, “[t]he admission or exclusion of evidence which is objected to on the ground of relevancy lies within t......
-
Burnham v. Burnham
...to support the trial court’s finding, [we] will not find there was an abuse of discretion." (Citation omitted.) Autrey v. Autrey , 288 Ga. 283, 285 (4), 702 S.E.2d 878 (2010). Once an award of child custody has been made, when the non-custodial parent seeks to change that arrangement, the t......