Monroe v. Taylor, No. A02A1931.
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | ELLINGTON. |
| Citation | 259 Ga. App. 600,577 S.E.2d 810 |
| Parties | MONROE v. TAYLOR. |
| Docket Number | No. A02A1931. |
| Decision Date | 29 January 2003 |
577 S.E.2d 810
259 Ga. App. 600
v.
TAYLOR
No. A02A1931.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
January 29, 2003.
Reconsideration Denied February 12, 2003.
Celeste F. Brewer, for appellee.
ELLINGTON, Judge.
Following the grant of his application for discretionary appeal in this child custody and support modification action, Austin Monroe, Jr. appeals from the DeKalb County Superior Court's order awarding attorney fees to Adrienne Taylor. Monroe contends that OCGA § 19-6-19(d), the basis for the attorney fee award, applies only when one party initiates an action for modification of child support following a final divorce decree. Because he and Taylor were never married, and because he initiated the action to modify custody, Monroe contends the trial court erred when it awarded Taylor attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-19(d). For the following reasons, we affirm.
"When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the `plain legal error' standard of review. Moreover, where it is apparent that a trial court's judgment rests on an erroneous legal theory, an appellate court cannot affirm." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824(1), 543 S.E.2d 733 (2000).
[259 Ga. App. 601] The record shows the following: Monroe and Taylor, who were never married, had a child in 1993. In 1995, after the Department of Human Resources filed a child support recovery action on behalf of the child, the trial court entered orders providing for custody and support of the child. On November 30, 2000, Monroe filed an action against Taylor seeking a change in custody based on a change in conditions in Taylor's home. Taylor filed a counterclaim for increased child support based on a change in Monroe's financial condition and the child's needs. Taylor also sought attorney fees.
Monroe and Taylor resolved the custody dispute, leaving the child support issue for trial. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded Taylor increased child support, reserving the issue of attorney fees. After a hearing, the trial court awarded Taylor, as the prevailing party, attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-19(d).
1. Monroe contends that use of the term "former spouse" to describe the parties who may file and respond to a petition for modification of child support in OCGA § 19-6-19 limits the attorney fees provisions to parties who were previously married.1
"As a general rule, Georgia law does not provide for the award of attorney fees even to a prevailing party unless authorized by statute or by contract. When awarded by statute, such fees may be obtained only pursuant to the statute under which the action was brought and decided." (Citations omitted.) Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga.App. at 824(1), 543 S.E.2d 733.
The Code section at issue here, OCGA § 19-6-19, appears in the chapter of the Domestic Relations Code entitled "Alimony and Child Support Generally." Although that chapter was patently conceived in the context of divorce and dissolution of marriage, Georgia courts have recognized the legislative intent to provide for the proper support of minor children whose parents never...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Hall, No. A15A1032.
...and modify the original child support order as the legal and physical custodian of the minor children. See generally Monroe v. Taylor, 259 Ga.App. 600, 577 S.E.2d 810 (2003) (affirming trial court's order awarding increase in child support to custodial parent when original award made to Dep......
-
Joyner v. RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, No. A04A0133.
...only pursuant to the statute under which the action was brought and decided." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Monroe v. Taylor, 259 Ga.App. 600, 602(1), 577 S.E.2d 810 (2003). Further, "[s]ince any such statute is in derogation of common law, then it must be strictly construed......
-
Horton v. Dennis, No. A13A0935.
...846 (1988) (accord); U–Haul Co. of Western Ga. v. Ford, 171 Ga.App. 744, 746(4), 320 S.E.2d 868 (1984) (accord).4 See Monroe v. Taylor, 259 Ga.App. 600, 601(1), 577 S.E.2d 810 (2003) ("As a general rule, Georgia law does not provide for the award of attorney fees even to a prevailing p......
-
Gowins v. Gary, No. A07A0979.
...J., concur. --------------- Notes: 1. See Sharpe v. Perkins, 284 Ga.App. 376, 379(2), 644 S.E.2d 178 (2007). 2. See Monroe v. Taylor, 259 Ga.App. 600, 577 S.E.2d 810 3. Gary also argued, based on the doctrine of mutual mistake, that the parties never agreed to a monthly payment of 28,000. T......
-
Hall v. Hall, No. A15A1032.
...and modify the original child support order as the legal and physical custodian of the minor children. See generally Monroe v. Taylor, 259 Ga.App. 600, 577 S.E.2d 810 (2003) (affirming trial court's order awarding increase in child support to custodial parent when original award made to Dep......
-
Joyner v. RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, No. A04A0133.
...only pursuant to the statute under which the action was brought and decided." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Monroe v. Taylor, 259 Ga.App. 600, 602(1), 577 S.E.2d 810 (2003). Further, "[s]ince any such statute is in derogation of common law, then it must be strictly construed......
-
Horton v. Dennis, No. A13A0935.
...846 (1988) (accord); U–Haul Co. of Western Ga. v. Ford, 171 Ga.App. 744, 746(4), 320 S.E.2d 868 (1984) (accord).4 See Monroe v. Taylor, 259 Ga.App. 600, 601(1), 577 S.E.2d 810 (2003) ("As a general rule, Georgia law does not provide for the award of attorney fees even to a prevailing p......
-
Gowins v. Gary, No. A07A0979.
...J., concur. --------------- Notes: 1. See Sharpe v. Perkins, 284 Ga.App. 376, 379(2), 644 S.E.2d 178 (2007). 2. See Monroe v. Taylor, 259 Ga.App. 600, 577 S.E.2d 810 3. Gary also argued, based on the doctrine of mutual mistake, that the parties never agreed to a monthly payment of 28,000. T......