Stone v. Stone, 46084
| Decision Date | 23 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 46084,46084 |
| Citation | 258 Ga. 716,373 S.E.2d 627 |
| Parties | STONE v. STONE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
M. Francis Stubbs, Joseph D. McGovern, Dubberly & McGovern, Reidsville, for Charles G. Stone.
Robert C. Wilmot, Reinhardt and Whitley, Tifton, for Nancy M. Stone.
The jury verdict in this divorce action provided that the parties would pay their own court costs and attorney fees. The trial court adopted the verdict, but awarded $8000 to the wife and attorney fees.
The issue of attorney fees is reserved to the trial judge under OCGA § 19-6-2, and the court correctly invalidated that aspect of the verdict. The issue then becomes whether or not the verdict may stand in the light of this alteration. OCGA § 9-12-7 provides, in part:
"[A]fter a verdict has been received and recorded and the jury has been dispersed, it may not be amended in matter of substance either by what the jurors say they intended to find or otherwise."
We must assume that the allocation of resources, under the scheme adopted by the jury in its verdict, was based upon the jury's expectation that no party would be required to pay litigation costs incurred by the other party. The trial court's award of a substantial sum in litigation expenses to the wife worked a change "in matter of substance" of the jury's allocation of resources between the parties. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for a new trial. 1
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
All the Justices concur.
1 We have suggested on several occasions that jury verdicts that include inappropriate terms or ambiguities be resubmitted for amendment or clarification.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Johnson, S89A0456
...occasions that jury verdicts that include inappropriate terms or ambiguities be resubmitted for amendment or clarification." Stone v. Stone, 258 Ga. 716, 717 (n. 1), 373 S.E.2d 627 (1988). A modicum of care before the jury is dispersed can diminish the anguish of appeal and the debilitation......
-
Gardner v. Gardner, S94A0222
...has expressly requested that the life insurance provision be stricken and that a new trial not be granted. Compare Stone v. Stone, 258 Ga. 716, 373 S.E.2d 627 (1988); Marshall v. Marshall, 262 Ga. 443, 421 S.E.2d 71 Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part with direction. All the Justice......
-
Franklyn Gesner Fine Paintings, Inc. v. Ketcham
...Gesner's attorney stated "I think they did the right thing when they said one or the other."In this connection, see Stone v. Stone, 258 Ga. 716, 373 S.E.2d 627 (1988), specifically n. 1, as follows: "We have suggested on several occasions that jury verdicts that include inappropriate terms ......
-
Brochin v. Brochin
...263 Ga. 56, 428 S.E.2d 79 (1993), and the parties' post-decree financial circumstances. OCGA § 19-6-2; see generally Stone v. Stone, 258 Ga. 716, 373 S.E.2d 627 (1988). It follows that the court did not err in entering the final decree and reserving the issue of attorney 2. The court did no......