Edge v. Edge, No. S11A1532.

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the CourtMELTON
Citation12 FCDR 568,290 Ga. 551,722 S.E.2d 749
Decision Date27 February 2012
Docket NumberNo. S11A1532.
PartiesEDGE v. EDGE.

12 FCDR 568
290 Ga. 551
722 S.E.2d 749

EDGE
v.
EDGE.

No. S11A1532.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 27, 2012.


[722 S.E.2d 750]

Hait, Eichelzer & Kuhn, Elizabeth J. Kuhn, for appellant.

Hill–MacDonald, Vic B. Hill, Marietta, for appellee.

MELTON, Justice.

[290 Ga. 551] Mark Anthony Edge (Husband) and Marilyn K. Edge (Wife) were divorced on December 19, 2007. On March 17, 2008, Husband filed a complaint for a downward modification of his child support obligations to Wife. On March 25, 2008, Wife filed an answer and counterclaim for an upward modification of child support, and, on July 7, 2009, Wife filed a motion for contempt, contending Husband had failed to properly make required support payments. On January 12, 2009, Husband traveled to Afghanistan for his employer. Prior to leaving, Husband informed his attorney of his correct Atlanta address. On June 15, 2009, Husband's counsel filed a motion to withdraw but included an incorrect address for Husband in her motion. On September 8, 2009, the trial court held a hearing on the case. Husband, who was in Afghanistan, did not appear; however, Husband's attorney did appear, moved for a continuance, and asked that her motion to withdraw be granted. The trial court entered an order allowing Husband's counsel to withdraw, and a new hearing was set for October 26, 2009. Husband's counsel sent notice of her withdrawal to Husband's correct address, but the notice for the October 26th hearing was sent to the incorrect address on the motion to withdraw. Husband was still in Afghanistan and claims that he never received actual notice of the hearing.

On October 26, 2009, the trial court conducted the hearing and entered a final order, holding that Wife should have sole legal and physical custody of the parties' children, Husband's right of visitation should be eliminated, Husband should be held in contempt for failure to pay child support, Husband's child support obligations should be increased, and Husband should pay Wife's attorney fees. Husband maintains that he first learned about this ruling when his employer received an income deduction order dated November 5, 2009. On November 23, 2009, Husband filed a motion to set aside the trial court's order pursuant to OCGA § 9–11–60(d)(2), arguing that his lack of notice was the result of his attorney's mistake in putting an incorrect address for Husband on her motion to withdraw. Subsequently, Wife filed a motion for summary judgment and a [290 Ga. 552] motion to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Collins v. Davis, No. A12A1445.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 30, 2012
    ...that an action seeking to change visitation qualifies for treatment as a child custody case and is directly appealable. See Edge v. Edge, 290 Ga. 551, 552–553(1), 722 S.E.2d 749 (2012); Moore v. Moore–McKinney, 297 Ga.App. 703, 705(1), 678 S.E.2d 152 (2009). 6. See Jackson v. Irvin, 316 Ga.......
  • Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Shelton, No. S11A1468.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • February 27, 2012
    ...the Original Security Deeds were paid off by Choice Capital in 2000, did not unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of Appellants, [722 S.E.2d 749] who were not involved with the property until three years later, nor did they legally consent to the dealings with respect to the loans. See......
  • Viskup v. Viskup, No. S12A0276.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • May 29, 2012
    ...denied in May 2011. Father then filed this direct appeal from a judgment in a child custody case. OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11). See Edge v. Edge, 290 Ga. 551(1), 722 S.E.2d 749 (2012) (construing subsection (a)(11) as permitting a direct appeal of an order in a child custody case regarding which pa......
  • Murphy v. Murphy, No. S13G1651.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • June 30, 2014
    ...under the prior version of OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11), there was no right of direct appeal from the recusal order at issue. In Edge v. Edge, 290 Ga. 551, 722 S.E.2d 749 (2012), this Court plainly stated that such statutory provision was limited to “order[s] in a child custody case regarding which......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Collins v. Davis, No. A12A1445.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 30, 2012
    ...that an action seeking to change visitation qualifies for treatment as a child custody case and is directly appealable. See Edge v. Edge, 290 Ga. 551, 552–553(1), 722 S.E.2d 749 (2012); Moore v. Moore–McKinney, 297 Ga.App. 703, 705(1), 678 S.E.2d 152 (2009). 6. See Jackson v. Irvin, 316 Ga.......
  • Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Shelton, No. S11A1468.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • February 27, 2012
    ...the Original Security Deeds were paid off by Choice Capital in 2000, did not unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of Appellants, [722 S.E.2d 749] who were not involved with the property until three years later, nor did they legally consent to the dealings with respect to the loans. See......
  • Viskup v. Viskup, No. S12A0276.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • May 29, 2012
    ...denied in May 2011. Father then filed this direct appeal from a judgment in a child custody case. OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11). See Edge v. Edge, 290 Ga. 551(1), 722 S.E.2d 749 (2012) (construing subsection (a)(11) as permitting a direct appeal of an order in a child custody case regarding which pa......
  • Murphy v. Murphy, No. S13G1651.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • June 30, 2014
    ...under the prior version of OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11), there was no right of direct appeal from the recusal order at issue. In Edge v. Edge, 290 Ga. 551, 722 S.E.2d 749 (2012), this Court plainly stated that such statutory provision was limited to “order[s] in a child custody case regarding which......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT