Keith v. Keith, 28277
| Citation | 200 S.E.2d 891,231 Ga. 230 |
| Decision Date | 05 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 28277,28277 |
| Parties | Harry Lewis KEITH v. Betty Smelly KEITH. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Rich, Bass, Kidd & Broome, R. Hopkins Kidd, Decatur, for appellant.
James W. Lewis, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Harry Lewis Keith, appellant in this case, filed for divorce in the Superior Court of Fulton County on April 28, 1971. Appellant's wife at that time, Betty Smelly Keith, appellee here, filed no answer to the complaint but did sign a property agreement with appellant, said agreement being made the temporary and permanent decree of the court as to permanent alimony, division of personal property and attorney fees. Along with the property agreement Mrs. Keith signed an acknowledgment of service of the complaint and waived any further service in the case. Mrs. Keith also signed an acknowledgment of representation in which she stated that she understood that her husband's attorneys were representing him alone, and that it was her decision not to procure the services of another attorney after being advised to do so. The trial judge granted the divorce on September 2, 1971.
Almost a year and a half after the divorce decree, on February 26, 1973, Mrs. Keith, appellee, filed a complaint in the Fulton County Superior Court, asking that the original divorce decree and agreement be set aside. She alleged in this complaint that by reason of appellant's fraud and duress she was prevented from obtaining legal counsel sufficient to protect her interests; that the property agreement, made part of the final decree, was manifestly inequitable, and that except for the fraud and duress practiced by appellant, she would have obtained legal counsel in the divorce action and would not have signed the property agreement. She prayed for a jury trial and that a rule nisi issue requiring appellant to appear before the Fulton Superior Court and show cause why her demands should not be granted. The hearing before the trial judge was held on April 20, 1973. Prior to the calling of any witnesses the question of the jury trial came before the court. Appellee waived the right to a jury trial, although as stated earlier, she had requested one. The appellant, at that time, stated that he had been relying on appellee's petition asking for a jury trial, and that he too requested one, on the grounds that appellee's complaint went directly to the question of fraud and was therefore a question for a jury. Appellant then made a motion to dismiss the rule nisi hearing and deny temporary relief on the grounds that the question of fraud was one for the jury, and not within the province of the court. The trial judge overruled appellant's motion, and after presentation of the evidence and hearing arguments for both sides the court granted appellee's motion to set aside...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowles v. Rowles
...prevented her from appearing and asserting any available defenses. Id. at 675-76 (2), 221 S.E.2d 567. See also Keith v. Keith , 231 Ga. 230, 232 (2), 200 S.E.2d 891 (1973) (divorce decree set aside where wife was prevented from retaining counsel to protect her interests due to the husband's......
-
Thompson v. Thompson, 31343
...allegations of fraud and duress were sufficient under Code Ann. § 81A-109(b) to require an evidentiary hearing. See Keith v. Keith, 231 Ga. 230, 200 S.E.2d 891 (1973), and Bradberry v. Bradberry, 232 Ga. 651, 652(3), 208 S.E.2d 469 (1964). The judgment of dismissal will be reversed and the ......
- Pless v. State
-
Burns & Ledbetter, Inc. v. Primark Marking Co., 35057
...them negligent as a matter of law without invading the province of the jury. We cannot agree with this argument. In Keith v. Keith, 231 Ga. 230, 200 S.E.2d 891 (1973), this court, construing Code Ann. § 81A-160(e), held that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in equity cases. ......