In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: Ma rc h 7 , 2 0 1 6

S 1 5 A1 6 8 5 . HOARD v . BEVERIDGE.

THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e

.

Th is a p p e a l in v o lv e s a c h a lle n g e to a tria l c o u rt’s a wa rd to o ne p a rty in a

d iv o rc e a c tio n o f a tto rn e y fe e s u n d e r O C G A § 9 -1 5 -1 4 an d OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2

.

Be c a u se we c o n c lu d e th e tria l c o u rt m a d e su ffic ie n t fin din g s to su sta in th e fu ll

a m o u n t o f th e fe e a w a rdu n d e r OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 (a ), we a ffirm

.

In 2 0 09

, Bre tt Be v e rid g e file d a n a c tio n fo r d iv o rc e a g a in s t h i s w i fe

,

Viv ia n H o a rd

. On e c h ild w a s b o rn o f th e m a rria g e

, a n d th e p rim a ry issu e in th e

c a se in v o l v e d c u sto d y o f th e p a rtie s’ m in o r c h ild

. With th e p a rtie s’ c o n se n t,

th e re fo re

, th e tria l c o u rt a p p o in te d a s c u sto d y e v a lu a to r, Dr. C a ro l We b b

, wh o

c o n c lu d e d b o th p a rtie s we re fit a n d l o v in g p a re n ts a n d re c o m m e nd e d a jo in t

c u sto d ia l a rra n ge m e n t. Afte r a h e a rin g

, t h e t ria l c o u rt in Ap ril 2 01 1e n te re d a

te m p o ra ry o rd e r gra n tin g th e p a rtie s jo in t le g a l a nd p h y sic a l c u sto d y with e q u a l

p a re n tin g tim e

. In th e m e a n tim e , Ho a rd le a rn e d th a t in 2 0 0 6

, Dr. We b b a sk e do p p osin g c o u n se l’s h u sb a n d

, th e n sta te re p re se n ta tiv e Ed wa rd Lin d se y

, fo r a

le tte r of re c om m e nd a tio n fo r re -a p p o i n t me n t b y th e g o v e rn o r o f Ge o rg ia to a

p ro fe s s i on a l b o a rd

. Be lie v in g th a t Dr. W e b b’s re q u e st c re a te d a c o n flic t o f

in te re st, Ho a rd th ro u g h o u t m u c h o f th e re m a in d e r of th e d iv o rc e p ro c e e d in g s

file d n u m e ro u s m otio n s se e k in g to d isq u a lify Dr. We bb , a s we ll a s m o tio n s to

se t a sid e

, fo r n e w tria l, fo r m istria l, a n d to a m e n d

, re o p e n an d re h e a r h e r m o tio n s

to d i s q u a l i f

y

, e a c h o f wh ic h wa s re la te d to Ho a rd ’s e ffo rts to d isq ua lify D r.

We b b a n d wa s d e n ie d b y th e tria l c o u rt. 1

In Oc to b e r 20 1 2

, fo llo w in g a te n d a y tria l, t h e t ria l c o u rt issu e d a fin a l

o rd e r gra n tin g th e p a

rtie s jo in t le g a l a n d ph y sic a l c u sto d y with e q u a l p are n tin g

tim e

. Th e o rd e r sp e c ific a lly sta te d th a t th e tria l c o u rt d id no t re ly on Dr. We b b ’s

re p o rt in m a k in g its c usto d y d e te rm in a tio n b ut n ote d th a t th e re po rt w a s n o t

in c o nsiste nt with th e o th e r e vid e n c e p re se nte d b y th e p artie s. Bo th Ho a rd a n d

Be v e rid g e file d c ro ss-m o tio n s fo r a t t o r n e y fe e s a n d e x p e n se s se e k in g

,

re sp e c tiv e ly

, fe e s a n d e x p e n se s o f $4 31 ,4 1 1.2 5 a n d $ 4 0 0 ,9 7 4 .9 0

. In a n Oc to b e r

1 Dr. W e bb testif

i ed t h a t s h e did not r ecall asking f or the letter of recom m endation

until s h e was asked about it b y Hoard’s counsel at her deposition and that she did not know

whether Mr. L indsey actually wrote a letter until Hoard f iled her f irst m otion to disqualif

y

, af ter the custody

evaluation had been com pleted.

22 0 1 4 o rd e r, th e tria l c o u rt d e n ie d Ho a rd ’s fe e m o tio n an d gra n te d Be v e rid g e ’s

m o tio n, a wa rd in g h im $ 23 2,1 1 4 in fe e s an d e x p e nse s, th e e xa c t a m ou n t o f a ll

c o sts h e c l a i me d to h a ve in c u rre d fro m th e d a te o f th e te m p o ra ry h e a rin g a n d

a fte r th e tria l c o u r t ’ s d e n ia l o f Ho a rd ’s first m o tio n to d isq u a lify Dr. We b b

.

S e e k in g le a v e to c h a lle n g e th e tria l c o u rt’s fe e a wa rd

, H o a rd su b se q u e n tly file d

a n a p p lic a tio n fo r d isc re tio n a ry a p p e a l wh ic h th is C o u r t g ra n te d p ursu a n t to

Ru le 3 4 (4 ).

1

. Th e tria l c o u r t m a d e its fe e a wa rd

, with ou t a llo c a tio n

, u n d e r b o th

OCGA § 19 -6 -2 a n d OCGA § 9 -1 5

- 1 4

, b a s e d o n its c o n c lu sio n th a t Ho a rd ’s

n u m e ro u s a tte m

p ts to d isq u a lify a n d d i s c r e d i t D r

. W e b b u n n e c e ssa rily e x p a n d e d

th e l i t i g a tio n a n d th a t a lth o u g h “ n e ith e r p a rty [c o u ld ] a ffo rd th e e x te n siv e

litig a tio n a n d th e e xte n siv e fe e s th e y in c u rre d ,” Ho a rd h a d a “ su p e rio r a b ility to

p a y .” H o a rd c o n te nd s th e tria l c o urt e rre d b y fa ilin g to id e n tify wh ic h p o rtio n

o f th e fe e s wa s a w a rd e d p u rs u a n t to OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 a n d wh ic h p o rtio n wa s

a wa rd e d p u rsu a n t to OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 (a ). S h e fu rth e r a rg u e s th a t with o u t su c h

a p p o rtio n m e n t, th e a

wa rd m u st b e re v e rse d b e c a

u se th e tria l c o u rt’s fin d in g s a re

n o t su ffic ie n t to in d e pe n d e n tly su sta in th e fu ll a wa rd u n d e r e ith e r sta tu te

. S e e

P a r k R id g e Co n d o Ass’n v

. Ca lla is, 2 9 0 Ga

. Ap p

. 8 7 5

, 8 7 8 (6 6 0 S E2 d 7 3 6 )

3(2 0 0 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t tria l c ou rt a b u se d its disc re tio n by fa ilin g to sp e c ify in its

a wa rd o f a tto rn e y fe e s a n d e x p e n se s w h i c h f e es a n d e x p e n se s fe ll with in th e

a m b it o f th e a

p p lic a b le fe e sta tu te ). C o m

p a re Ta y lo r v. Ta y lo r, 2 93 G a

. 6 1 5

,

6 1 8 -6 1 9 (4 ) (7 4 8 S E2 d 8 7 3 ) ( 2 0 1 3 ) (u p h o ld in g a tto rn e y fe e a wa rd th a t fa ile d

to sp e c ify wh ic h p o rtio n o f th e a wa rd wa s m a d e p u rsu a n t to OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4

(b ) an d OCGA § 19 -9 -3 (6 ) b e c a u se an a wa rd o f th e fu l l a mo u n t wo u ld h a v e

b e e n a u th o riz e d u n d e r e ith e r sta tu te ).

We b e gin o u r a n a ly sis with O CGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ), a sta tu te wh ic h

a u th oriz e s a tria l c ou rt to a wa rd re a so n a b le a tto rn e y fe e s u po n a fin din g th a t a n

a c tio n or a n y p a rt th e re o f “ la c k e d su b sta n tia l ju stific a tio n o r t h at t h e a c tio n

. .

. wa s in te rp ose d fo r de la y or h a ra ssm e nt, o r if it fin d s th a t a n a tto rn e y o r p a rty

u n n e c e ssa rily e x p a n d e d th e p ro c e e d in g b y o th e r im p ro p e r c o n d u c t.” He re

, th e

tria l c ou rt c o n c lu d e d th a t Ho a rd ’s nu m e ro u s a t t e mp ts to disq u a lify Dr. We b b

b a se d o n h e r re q u e st fo r a le tte r o f re c om m e n d a tio n u nn e c e ssa rily e x p a nd e d th e

litig a tio n

, th u s a

u th o riz in g u n d e r § 9

- 1 5

- 1 4 (b ) a n a wa rd to Be v e rid g e in a n

a m o u n t lim ite d to th e fe e s a n d e x p e n se s h e in c urre d in d e fe n d in g a g a in st

Ho a rd ’s sa n c tio n a

b le c o n d u c t. S e e Ha rd m a n v

. Ha rd m a n

, 2 9 5 G a

. 73 2

, 7 4 0

(7 6 3 S E2 d 8 6 1 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (sta tin g th a t awa rd of a tto rn e y fe e s u n d e r OCG A §

49 -1 5 -1 4 m ig h t h a v e b e e n a p p ro p ria te in c o nte m

pt a c tio n if lim ite d to fe e s p a rty

in c u rre d in de fe n d in g a g a in st issu e im p ro p e rly ra ise d in m o tio n fo r c o n te m p t);

La b MD, In c

. v

. S a v e ra

, 3 3 1 Ga

. Ap p

. 4 63

, 4 6 7 (2 ) (a ) (7 71 S E2 d 1 4 8) (2 0 1 5 )

( t r i a l c o u rt m

u st lim it a tto rn e y fe e s a w a rd e d p u rsu a n t to O CGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 ( b )

to th o se in c urre d b e c a

use o f th e sa n c tio n a

b le c o n d u c t); T ro tte r v. S u m m e ro u r,

2 7 3 G a

. Ap p. 2 6 3

, 2 6 7 ( 2 ) (6 1 4 S E2 d 8 8 7 ) (2 0 0 5 ) (a tria l c o u rt is re q u ire d to

e x c lu d e fro m fe e a wa rd m a d e p u rsu a n t to OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 a n y fe e s “ u n re la te d

to d e fe n d in g a g a in st th e c la im s d e e m e d friv o lo u s” ). Th e tria l c o u r t ’ s o rd e r,

h o we v e r, m a ke s n o sp e c ific a llo c a tio n o f fe e s a wa rd e d pu rsu a n t to OCGA § 9

-

1 5 -1 4 (b ) a n d a wa rd s Be v e rid g e $ 2 3 2 ,1 1 4 in f e e s a nd e x p e n se s, th e sa m e

a m o u n t h e c la im e d to h a v e i n c u rre d fro m th e d a te of th e te m po ra ry h e a rin g

re la te d to a ll a sp e c ts o f th e litig a tio n . In fa c t, Be v e rid g e ’s o wn e v id e nc e d oe s

n o t su p p o rt th e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e fu ll a m o u n t o f th e c o u rt’s fe e a wa rd is

su sta in a b le u n d e r OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ) in a sm u c h a s it sh o ws th a t h is c o sts

re la te d to Ho a rd ’s sa n c tio n a b le c o n d u c t d id n o t e x c e e d $ 6 5,0 0 0

. We a g re e th e n

with Ho a rd ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e tria l c o u rt’s fu ll a wa rd c a n n o t b e u ph e ld u n d e r

th is se c tio n o f th e Ge o rg iaCo d e

.

2

. If OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 wa s th e o n ly b a s i s s ta te d fo r th e fe e a wa rd

, we

5m ig h t a t th is ju n c tu re sim p ly v a c a te th e a wa rd a n d re m a n d to th e tria l c ou rt. S e e

Ha rd m a n, 2 9 5 Ga

. a t 7 4 0

. Va c a tio n a n d r e m an d a re u nwa rra nte d in th is c a se

,

h o we v e r, b e c a

u se th e fu ll a m o u n t of th e tria l c o u rt’s a wa rd c a n b e in de p e n d e n tly

su sta in e d u n d e r OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 (a ). S e e T a y lo r, 2 9 3 Ga

. a t 61 8-6 1 9

. Th a t

se c tio n " a

u th o riz e s a t r ia l c o u rt in a d iv o rc e a c tio n to e x e rc ise its so u n d

d isc re tio n a n d

, a fte r c o n sid e rin g th e fin a n c ia l c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e p a r t i e s

, to

a wa rd a tto rn e y fe e s a s n e c e ssa ry to e n su re th e e ffe c tiv e re p re se n ta tio n o f b o th

p a rtie s." S im m o ns v

. S imm on s, 2 8 8 Ga

. 6 70

, 6 7 3 (7 06 S E2 d 4 56 ) (2 0 1 1 ). A

tria l c o u rt' s d e c isio n " [w] h e th e r to a w a r d a tto rn e y fe e s

. . . p u rsu a n t to OCGA

§ 19 -6 -2 is a m a tte r with in th e d isc re tio n o f th e tria l c o urt, a n d th e e x e rc ise o f

th a t d isc re tio n will n o t b e re v e rse d u n le ss m a n ife stly o r fla g ra ntly a b u se d ."

M o n g e rso n v

. Mo n g e rso n

, 28 5 G a

. 5 5 4

, 55 8-5 5 9 (6 7 8 S E 2 d 8 9 1 ) (2 0 0 9 )

,

o v e rru le d o n o th e r g ro un ds, S im m on s, 2 88 Ga . a t 6 7 2 , n .4

.

Th e re c o rd in th is c a se sh o ws th a t e vid e n c e wa s pre se n te d a t th e m o tio n s

h e a rin g re g a rd in g th e p a rtie s’ fin a n c ia l c ir c u m sta n c e s, in c lu d in g e vid e n c e o f

th e ir in c o m e

, th e ir re sp e c tiv e e q u ity in te re sts in re a l p ro p e rty

, a nd Be v e rid g e ’s

o b lig a tio n u n d e r t h e fin a l de c re e to p a y fo r th e c o st o f th e ir c h ild ’s p riv a te

6sc h o o l e du c a tio n

. 2 Th e tria l c o u rt a lso h a d be fo re it e v id e n c e th a t Ho a rd d u rin g

th e div o rc e p ro c e e d in gs liq u id a te d m a rita l a sse ts to p a y fo r a p o rtio n o f h e r

a tto rn e y f e e s w h ile Be v e rid g e u se d h is own no n-m arita l a sse ts a n d ob ta in e d a

lo a n a g a in st h is 4 0 1 (k ) to p a y fo r a po rtio n o f h is fe e s. 3 Th e re c o r d a n d fe e

h e a rin g tra n sc rip t th u s sh o w th a t th e tria l c o u rt c a re fu lly c o n sid e re d th e p a rtie s’

re la tiv e fin a nc ia l po si t i o n s, th e ir o b lig a tio n s u n d e r th e fin a l d e c re e

, a n d th e

su b sta n tia l c o sts in c u rre d b y b o th p a rtie s, a n d awa rd e d Be v e rid g e su b sta n tia lly

le ss th a n th e to ta l a m ou nt o f fe e s h e c la im e d to h a ve in c u rre d in th e litig a tio n

.

Ba se d o n th is re c o rd

, we c a n no t sa y th a t th e tria l c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in

m a k in g its a w a rd wh ic h e n su re d e ffe c tiv e re p re se n ta tio n o f b o th sp o u se s. 4 S e e

2 The trial court f

ound t hat Beveridge earned approxim ately $19,000.00 a m onth and

Hoard earned approxim ately $20,000.00 per m onth. W ith regard t o Hoard’s “superior ability

to pay ,” the tr i a l court noted, in addition to the slight dif f erence in incom e, that B everidge

w a s responsible under the f i nal decree to pay $2,000.00 per m onth toward the c ost of t h e

child ’ s private school education and the f act Hoard had $224,300.00 in equity in her

residence while Beveridge, w ho had m oved out of the m a rital hom e, had only $29,000.00 in

equity in his residence.

3 Contrary to Hoard’s argum ent, the f act that B everidge was able to pay f o r a portion

of his f ee obligation during the course of this lengthy and c ontentious divorce p roceeding did

not deprive the trial court of its statutory

authority to award f

e es under OCGA § 19-6-2.

4 W e f ind no m erit in H o a r d’s argum ent that the trial court abused its discretion by

rely ing on f

inancial inf

orm at i o n presented during the October 2012 f inal hearing. Hoard

f a i l ed to respond to B everidge’s n otice to produce m ore current f inancial inf

orm ation an d

f ailed to p roduce at the f

ee hearing evidence of her then-current f inancial status, despite

7S im m on s, 2 8 8 Ga

. a t 6 7 3

- 6 7 4 (fin d in g n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n wh e re re c o rd

sh o we d tria l c ou rt c on sid e re d th e p a r t i e s ’ r e l at i v e f

i n a n c ia l po sitio n s a nd g ra n te d

fe e s to wife b e c a

u se sh e wo u ld b e p r i ma ry p h y sic a l c u sto d ia n); P a te l v. P a te l,

2 8 5 Ga

. 3 9 1

, 3 9 3 (4 ) (6 7 7 S E2 d 1 1 4 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (fin d in g no a b u se o f disc re tio n in

tria l c o u rt’s d e c isio n to d e n y wife ’s c la im fo r a tto rn e y fe e s u n d e r OCGA § 1 9 -6

-

2 wh e re th e tria l co u rt fo u n d b o th p a rtie s u se d m arita l p ro p e rty to p a y th e ir

a tto rn e y fe e s); Jo hn so n v

. Jo h n so n

, 2 8 4 Ga

. 3 6 6

, 3 6 8 (3 ) (6 6 7 S E2 d 3 5 0) (2 0 0 8 )

(a ffirm in g a w a rdo f a tto rn e y fe e s u n d e r OCGA § 19 -6 -2 b a se d o n tria l c o u rt’s

“ b ro a d d isc re tio n to s e t t h e a m o u n t a n d te rm s o f p a y m e nt fo r a n y a wa rd o f

a tto rn e y s’ fe e s.” ); Br a d y v

. Bra d y

, 2 2 8 G a

. 6 1 7 (1 ) (1 8 7 S E 2 d 2 5 8 ) (1 9 7 2 )

(d isc re tio n of tria l c o u rt a s to a m o u n t o f fe e s a wa rd e d u n d e r O C G A § 1 9 -6 -2

will n o t b e d i s t u r b e d a

b se n t a n a

b u se o f d isc re tio n ). Ac c o rd in gly

, th e tria l

c o u rt’s fu ll fe e a w a rd c a n b e su sta in e d u n de r O CGA § 1 9 -6 -2 a nd we will n o t

d istu rb th is a wa rd o n a

p p e a l. S e e Ta

y lo r, 2 9 3 Ga

. a t 6 1 8 -6 19 (4 ).

We fin d n o m e rit in Ho a rd ’s a rg u m e nt th a t th e tria l c o u rt’s a wa rd u n d e r

being directed by the trial court’s rule nisi to do so, leaving the trial c o urt no choice but to

rule on t he f

ee m otions based o n t h e evidence previously p resented. Moreover, unlike in

Thedieck v. Thedieck, 220 Ga. App. 7 64, 7 68 ( 470 SE2d 265) (1996), there was not in this

case even the suggestion of a substantial change in the parties’ f inancial circum stances.

8OCGA § 19 -6 -2 wa s pu n itiv e o r im p ro p e rly pre d ic a te d o n a fin d in g th a t sh e

e n g a g e d in m isc o n d u c t. Alth o u gh t h e tria l c o u rt disc u sse s in its fe e o rd e r th e

p ro c e d u ra l h isto ry o f th e p a rtie s’ litig a tio n a n d c le arly c o n c lu d e s th a t Ho a rd ’s

“ n u m e ro u s a tte m

p ts to d i sq u a lify a n d d isc re d it th e c u sto d y e va lu a to r

u n n e c e ssa rily e x p a nd e d th [e ] litig a tio n

, ” n o th in g in th e la n g u a ge of th e o rd e r

su g g e sts th e se fa c to rs p la y e d a n y p a rt in its d e c isio n to a wa rd fe e s to Be v e rid g e

p u rsu a n t to OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2

. Co m p a re We a v e r v. W e a v e r

, 2 6 3 Ga

. 5 6 (4 2 8

S E2 d 79 ) (1 9 9 3 ) (re ve rsin g fe e a wa rd un de r OCGA § 19 -6 -2 w h e re d e c isio n to

a wa rd fe e s to o n e p a rty w a s b a se d o n oth e r p a rty ’s re fu sa l to se ttle disp u te ). In

fa c t, th e tria l c o urt’s d isc u ssio n o f its fe e a wa rd a s it e xp lic itly re la te s to OCGA

§ 1 9 -6 -2 m a k e s no re fe re n c e to Ho a rd ’s co n d u c t b u t p ro p e rly fo c u se s o n th e

p a rtie s’ fin a n c ia l c irc u m sta n c e s a n d a bility to a ffo rd th e litig a tio n

.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

9