Margeson v. Givens, 28383
| Decision Date | 07 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28383,28383 |
| Citation | 203 S.E.2d 186,231 Ga. 552 |
| Parties | Robert M. MARGESON, III, et al. v. Carroll C. GIVENS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
It was not error to enjoin the sheriff from selling the property of the appellee to satisfy the fi. fa., and to order cancellation of the fi. fa.
May & Margeson, Robert M. Margeson, III, Leesburg, for appellants.
Thad Gibson, Leesburg, for appellee.
Robert M. Margeson, III, made an affidavit for the issuance of a writ of fieri facias, stating that he was attorney for Sandra B. Givens in her divorce action against Carroll C. Givens; that the court awarded the sum of $250 as attorney fees for the filing and prosecution of her action; and that this sum has not been paid to him and is past due.
Carroll C. Givens filed an equitable complaint against Margeson and R. A. Forrester, the Sheriff of Lee County, alleging that the fi. fa. of Margeson had been levied on his mobile home, that he was not indebted to Margeson in any amount, and that the fi. fa. was issued illegally and should be canceled. He prayed that the sheriff be enjoined from selling the mobile home, and that Margeson be required to deliver up the fi. fa. for cancellation.
In the answer of Margeson and Forrester it was alleged that 'attorney's fees were awarded for plaintiff's attorney for services rendered and was not the property of plaintiff (Mrs. Givens) and especially so since there was a reconciliation of the marriage.'
The trial judge's order states that it was entered 'after hearing evidence.' The sheriff was permanently enjoined from selling the mobile home levied upon by him to satisfy the fi. fa., Margeson was ordered to deliver up the fi. fa. to the Clerk of Lee Superior Court, and the clerk was ordered to cancel the fi. fa. of record. Robert M. Margeson, III, and R. A. Forrester appeal from this judgment.
No transcript of the evidence appears in the record, but both parties in their briefs argue the legal question of whether the attorney, in his own name, can have a fi. fa. issued to enforce the award of temporary alimony made to Mrs. Givens of $250 for attorney fees.
In White v. Bowen, 223 Ga. 94, 153 S.E.2d 706 (with two Justices dissenting), this court held: 'The allowance of attorney's fees in an action for divorce and alimony as a part of the expenses of litigation (Code § 30-202) is for the benefit of the wife to enable her to contest the issues between herself and her husband, and the provision of the alimony judgment awarding such attorney's fees can not be enforced by the attorney in his own name by attachment for contempt or by writ of fieri facias.' That case cited a number of cases in which this court had held that even though the judgment of the court specifically awarded attorney fees to the wife's attorney, the court would construe the judgment to be one in favor of the wife. In this connection see: Walden v. Walden, 171 Ga. 444(2), 155 S.E. 919; Sellers v. Sellers, 175 Ga. 47(3), 164 S.E. 769; Thomas v. Smith, 185 Ga. 243(2), 194 S.E. 502; Blackburn v. Blackburn, 201 Ga. 793, 794(1), 41 S.E.2d 519; Coleman v. Coleman, 205 Ga. 92, 93, 52 S.E.2d 438.
The case of White v. Bowen, 223 Ga. 94, 153 S.E.2d 706, supra, was decided February 9, 1967, and rehearing was denied February 23, 1967. On April 14, 1967, the General Assembly approved an Act (Code Ann. § 30-202.1) which provides as follows: 'The grant of attorneys' fees as a part of the expenses of litigation made at any time during the pendency of the litigation, whether the action be for alimony, divorce and alimony, or contempt of court arising out of either an alimony case or a divorce and alimony case, shall be a final judgment as to the amount granted, whether the grant be in full or on account, and may be enforced by attachment for contempt of court or by writ of fieri facias, whether the parties subsequently reconcile or not: Provided, that nothing contained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anstadt v. Bd. Of Regents Of The Univ. System Of Ga.
...184, 186-187, 674 S.E.2d 894 (2009). 18. Id.; Norton v. Cobb, 284 Ga.App. 303, 306(1), 643 S.E.2d 803 (2007). 19. Margeson v. Givens, 231 Ga. 552, 553, 203 S.E.2d 186 (1974). Williamson v. Dept. of Human Resources, 258 Ga.App. 113, 572 S.E.2d 678 (2002). 21. 42 USC § 12101 et seq. 22. 29 US......
-
Anstadt v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, A09A2213 (Ga. App. 3/25/2010)
...184, 186-187 (674 SE2d 894) (2009). 18. Id.; Norton v. Cobb, 284 Ga. App. 303, 306 (1) (643 SE2d 803) (2007). 19. Margeson v. Givens, 231 Ga. 552, 553 (203 SE2d 186) (1974). 20. Williamson v. Dept. of Human Resources, 258 Ga. App. 113 (572 SE2d 678) (2002). 21. 42 USC § 12101 et seq. 22. 29......
-
State v. Kachwalla
...presumed to know what this Court has held the law to be on a particular subject when the legislature enacts laws (Margeson v. Givens, 231 Ga. 552, 553, 203 S.E.2d 186 (1974)), we presume the General Assembly knew in 1988, when it enacted § 40-6-391(a)(1)-(4) with a "less safe" standard and ......