THI RD DI VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, GOBEI L and HODGES, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

October 22, 2019



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 9 A1 37 5 . DOVEL v . DOVEL.

G O B E I L

, J u d g e.

In t h i s d iv o rce act i o n

, we g ran t e d t h e a p p l i cat i o n fo r d is cret i o n ary ap p eal o f

W es l ey J os h ua Do v el (t h e “ Hu s b an d ”) t o rev i ew t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s award o f $ 5 ,0 0 0 in

at t o rn ey fees t o Sam an t h a L ean ne Do v el (t h e “ W i fe”) p urs u an t t o OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 (a).

Th e Hu s b an d co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s award w as erro neo u s b ecau s e (1 ) at t o rn ey

fees un d er OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 (a) were p recl u d ed b y t h e p art ies ’ set t lem en t ag reem en t

wai v i n g al i m o n y ; an d (2 ) i t fai l ed t o p ro v i d e a s t a t u t o ry bas i s

, fi n di n g s of fact

, an d

co n cl u s i o n s o f l aw fo r t h e at t o rn ey fees award

. B e c a u s e w e ag ree t h at t h e award

u n d e r OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 (a) was p recl u d ed b y t h e p art i es ’ w ai v er o f al i m o n y

, we

rev ers e t he t ri al co u rt ’ s award

.Th e reco rd s ho ws t h at in 2 0 17 , t h e W i fe fi l ed a co m p l ai n t fo r di v o rce, wh i ch

i n cl u d ed a req u es t fo r t em p o rary an d p erm an e n t a l i m o n y an d at t o rn ey fees

. On t h e

d ay o f tri al

, t he p art i e s a g r e e d t o s et t l e t h e cas e. Th e p art i es rep res en t ed to t h e t ri al

co u rt t h at t h ey h ad res o l v ed al l i s s u es reg ard i n g deb t s a n d a s s et s

. As p art o f t h e

s et t l em en t ag reem en t

, t h e p art i es wai v ed al i m o n y

, b ot h affi rm i ng t h at th ere was “ n o

al i m o n y o r s u p p o rt of an y k i nd ” b et ween th em

. Bu t th e p art i es res erv ed t h e i s s u e o f

at t o rn ey fees fo r t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i on

.

Th e t ri al co urt hel d a h eari n g o n t h e at t o rn ey fees i s s ue. D u ri ng t h e h eari n g

, t h e

t ri al co u rt req u es t ed cl ari fi cat i o n as t o wh i ch st at u t o ry p ro vi s i o n ap p li ed t o t h e W i fe’ s

req u es t fo r at t o rn ey fees

. In res p on s e, t h e W if e ’s c o u n s el co n fi rm ed t wi ce t h at

at t o r n e y f

ees were b ei n g s o u g h t un d er OCGA § 19 -6 -2

. Th e p art i es i n t ro d u ced

ev i d en ce o f t h ei r res p ect i v e fi n an ci al ci rcu m s t an ces fo r t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s co n s i d erat i o n

as req u i red b y OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2

. Th e t ri al co u rt co n fi rm ed t h at i t was o n l y co n s i d eri n g

wh et h er t o award at t o rn ey fees un d er OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 p u rs u an t to t h e W i fe’ s req u es t

. 1

1 Th e t ri al ju d g e ex p res s e d

, “ T h e y’re on l y as k i n g [fo r at t o rn ey fees ] u n d er

[OCGA § ] 1 9 -6 -2 wh i ch

, as I un d ers t an d i t

, is in t h e d i s cret i o n o f t h e co u rt

. Bu t I d o

h av e t o co n s i d er th e f

i n a n c i al ci rcu m s tan ces o f b o t h part i es i n m ak i n g t h e award .”

Th e W i fe’ s co u n sel acq ui es ced i n t h e t ri al ju d g e’ s s t at em en t s co n fi r m i n g t h a t t h e

W i fe’ s bas i s o f reco v ery was u nd er OCGA § 1 9-6 -2 an d d i d n o t s u g g es t t h at at t o rn ey

fees were b ei n g s o u g h t u n d er a d i fferen t s t at u t ory p ro vi s i o n

.

2Th e Hu s b an d ’ s co u n s el ob ject ed t o t h e req ues t fo r at t o rn ey fees

, arg u in g t h at a

reco v ery was p ro h i bi ted u n der OCGA § 1 9-6 -2 b ecau s e t he p art i es ’ set t l em en t

ag reem en t h ad wai v ed al i m o n y. At t h e co n cl u s i o n o f t h e h eari n g

, t h e t ri al co u rt

reject ed t h e Hu s b an d’ s arg u m en t s an d award ed a t t o r n e y fees t o th e W i fe i n t h e

am ou n t o f $ 5 ,0 0 0 u n der OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2

.

Th e W i fe’ s co u n s el p rep ared t h e fi n al ju dg m en t an d d ecree o f d iv o rce, wh i ch

i n co rp o rat ed t h e p art i es ’ s et t lem en t ag reem en t an d i n cl u d ed t he at t o rn ey fees award

t o t he W i fe. Th e fi n al d ecree was ap p ro v ed a s t o fo r m b y t h e Hu s b an d’ s co u n s el

, an d

i t was su b m i t t ed t o t h e t ri al co u rt fo r en t ry

. Aft er t h e t ri al co u rt en tered t h e fi n al

d ecree, t he Hu sb an d t i m el y fi l ed an ap p l i cat i on fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap peal p u rs u an t to

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (2 ) s eek in g rev iew of t h e at t o rn ey fees award

. W e g ran t ed t h e

Hu s ban d ’ s ap p l icat i o n , an d t h e i n s t an t ap p eal en s u ed

.

1

. T h e H u sb an d co n ten d s t h at th e award o f at t o rn ey fees u n der OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2

(a) was p recl u d ed b y t h e part i es ’ s et t l em en t ag reem en t wai v i n g al i m o ny

. W e ag ree.

Al t h ou g h t h e fi n al ju d g m en t fai l ed t o s peci fy t h e s t at u t ory p ro vi s i o n u n d er

wh i ch t h e at t o rn ey fees were award ed

, th e p art i es d o n o t d i s p u t e t h at t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

award was b as ed u p o n OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2

. OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 (a) p ro v i d es

, i n p ert i n en t

p art , as fo l l o ws :

3Th e g ran t o f at t orn ey [] fees as a p art o f t h e ex p en s es o f l i t i g at i o n

, m ad e

at an y t i m e d u ri n g t h e p en d en cy o f t h e l i ti g at i o n , wh et h er t he act i o n i s

fo r al i m on y

, d i v o rce an d al im o n y

, or co n t em p t o f co u rt ari s i n g o u t o f

ei t h er an al i m o n y cas e o r a d i vo rce an d al i m o n y cas e, . . . s h al l b e:

(1 ) W i th i n t h e so u n d d is cret i o n o f t he co u rt

, ex cep t t h at t h e co u rt

s h al l co n s i d er t h e fi n an ci al ci rcu m st an ces o f b o t h p art i es as a p art

o f i t s d et erm i n at i on o f t he am o u n t o f at t o rn ey [] fees , i f an y , t o b e

al l o wed ag ai n s t ei t her p art y [.]

In o t her wo rd s

, OCGA § 1 9-6 -2 au t h o ri zes at t o rn ey fees award s i n c e r t a i n act i on s

i n v o l v i n g al im o n y. F u r t h er, “ [a] t t o rn ey fees

. . . award ed to a s p o u s e pu rs u an t to

OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2

. . . are co n s i d ered to b e a p art o f al im o n y .” V a k h a rwa l a v.

Va kh a r wa l a

, 3 0 1 Ga. 2 5 1

, 2 5 4

- 2 5 5 (1 ) (b ) (7 9 9 SE2 d 79 7 ) (2 0 1 7). W h en

, as h ere,

p art i es en t er an ag reem en t b arri n g t h e reco v ery of al i m on y

, an award o f at t o rn ey fees

u n d er OCGA § 19 -6 -2 l i k ewi se i s barred

. See id

. (h o l d i ng t h at wi fe w as b arred fro m

reco v eri n g at t o rn e y f

e e s u n der OCGA § 1 9-6 -2 s i n ce t h e p art i es ’ p ren u p t i al

ag reem en t b arred ei t h er p art y fro m s eek i n g o r ob t ai n i n g an y f o r m o f al i m o n y o r

s u p p ort fro m t h e o t h er); McCl ai n v. M c C l a i n

, 2 3 7 G a. 80

, 8 1 -8 2 (1 ) (2 2 7 SE2 d 5 )

(1 9 7 6) (h o l d i n g t hat wi fe was n o t en t it l ed t o at t o rn ey fees u n d er t h e p red eces s o r to

4OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 b ecau s e s h e en t ered in t o a reco nci l iat i on ag reem en t wi t h t h e h u s b an d

t h at b arred an y

fu t u re cl ai m s o f al i m o n y ).

Th e p art i es ’ s et t l em en t ag reem en t

, wh i ch was i n co rp o rat ed i n t o t h e fi n al

d i v o rce d ecree, u n am

b ig u o u s l y wai v ed t h e p art i es ’ ri g ht s t o recei v e al i m o n y

.

Sp eci fi cal l y , t h e s et t l em en t ag reem en t p ro v i d ed :

NO A LIMONY

. Each p art y wai v es an d fo rev er rel i n q u i sh es an y cl ai m s

an d ri g h t s each h as or m ay h av e t o al i m o n y

, m ai n ten an ce an d s u pp o rt o f

an y n at u re fro m t h e ot h er o r h i s o r h er es tat e, wh et her i n t h e fo r m o f

p eri o d ic p ay m en t s, l u m

p s u m p ay m en t s o r award s o f p ro p ert y fro m h i s

o r h er s ep arat e es t at e o r o t h erwi s e.

Th e W i fe co n ced es t h at t h e s et t l em en t ag reem en t d o es n o t p erm i t th e award u n d er

OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2

. 2 Th e W ife n ev ert h el es s arg u es th at t h e res erv at i o n o f t h e at t o rn ey

fees i ss u e an d award i n t he d ecree creat e am b i g ui t y as t o wh et h er at to rn ey fees co u ld

b e s o ug h t u n d er OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2

.

“ Th e card i nal ru l e o f [co n t ract ] co n s tru ct i on i s t o as cert ai n t h e i n t en ti o n o f t h e

p art i es .” OCGA § 1 3-2 -3 ; S u t h er l i n v. S

u t h er l in

, 3 0 1 Ga. 5 81

, 58 4 (II) (A) (8 0 2 SE2 d

2 0 4 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

2 In h er ap p el l at e b ri ef, t h e W i fe s t at es

, “ [w] e ag ree wi t h th e [H] u sb an d t h at t h e

s et t l em en t ag reem en t d o es n o t p erm i t t h e award .”

5W h ere an y co n t ract u al term o f a s et t lem en t ag reem en t i n co rp o rat ed i n t o

a d ecree i s cl ear, un am

b i g u o u s

, an d cap ab le o f o n ly o n e i n t e r p ret at i o n

as wri tt en

, t h e p ro v i s i o n ’ s p lai n m ean i n g m u s t b e s t ri ct l y en fo rced

.

Ho wev er, wh ere t h ere is am b i g u it y

, we m

u st ap p l y wel l -s et t led ru l es o f

co n t ract co ns t ru ct io n

.

Ca h i l l v

. Un i t ed S t a t es

, 3 03 G a. 1 4 8

, 1 5 0 (8 10 SE2 d 4 8 0 ) (2 01 8 ) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ). Un d er OCGA § 13 -2 -2 (4 ), “ [t ] h e co n st ru ct io n wh i ch wi l l

u p h o l d a co n t ract i n wh o l e an d i n ev ery p art i s t o b e p referred

, an d t he w h o l e co n t ract

s h o u ld b e l o o k ed to i n arri v i n g at t h e co n st ru ct io n o f an y part [.] ” W e are m in d fu l o f

t h e m ax i m t h at “ [we] s h o u l d av o i d an y co n s t ru ct i o n t hat ren d e r s p o r t i o n s o f t h e

co n tract l an g u ag e m ean i n gl es s .” S u t h er l in

, 3 0 1 Ga. at 5 8 5 (II) (A) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ). T h e “ No A l i m o ny ” p ro v i s io n i n t h e p art i es ’ set t l em en t

ag reem en t d i d n ot p ro v i d e an ex cep t i o n fo r at t o rn ey fees

. A co n s t ru ct i o n o f t h e t erm s

o f t h e s et t l em en t ag reem en t t h at w o u l d al l o w fo r su c h a n e x cep t i o n wo u l d ren d er

m ean i n g l es s t he pro vi si o n’ s b ro ad wai v er an d rel i nq u is h m en t o f “ an y cl ai m s a n d

ri gh t s each h as or m ay h av e t o al i m o n y

, m ai n ten an ce an d s up p o rt o f an y n at u re[.] ”

Becau s e t h e W i fe’ s s u g g es t ed co n st ru ct io n i n t h is reg ard wo ul d i n val i d at e t he ag reed

u p o n b ro ad wai v er o f al i m o n y

, h er co n st ru ct io n i s n ot au t h o ri zed

. See Fo r d v. Fo r d

,

3 4 9 G a. A p p

. 4 5

, 4 9 -5 1 (3 ) (8 2 5 SE2 d 4 4 9 ) (2 0 19 ) (p h y s i cal p reced en t o n l y )

6(reject i ng wi fe’ s co ns t ru ct i o n o f at t o rn ey fees p ro v is i o n t hat wo u l d n u l li fy t h e b ro ad

wai v er o f al i m o ny i n t h e p art i es ’ s et t l em en t ag reem en t

, an d h o l d i n g t hat award o f

at t o rn ey fees t o wi fe was p recl u d ed b y t h e wai ver o f al i m o n y ).

M o reo v er, t h e p art i es ’ ag reem en t t o res erv e th e i s su e of at t o rn ey fees fo r t h e

t ri al co urt ’ s det erm i n at i o n d o es n o t es t ab l i s h an i n ten t t o al l o w at t o r n e y f ees u n d er

OCG A § 1 9

- 6

- 2 (a). No t ab l y

, OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 d o es n o t pro v i de t he o n l y st at u t o ry

b as i s u po n wh i ch an award o f at t o rn ey fees can b e s o u g h t i n a di v o rce p ro ceed i n g.

Fo r in s tan ce, OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 au t h o ri zes a co u rt t o as s es s at t o rn ey fees ag ai n s t an y

p art y wh o h as en g ag ed i n m i sco n d u ct i n b ri ng i n g a cl ai m o r i n d efen d in g ag ai n s t an y

ci v i l act i o n

. 3 See Va kh a r wa l a

, 3 0 1 Ga. at 2 5 3

- 2 5 4 (1 ) (a) (affi rm i n g an award o f

at t o rn ey fees t o t h e wi fe u nd er OCGA § 9 -1 5-1 4 (b ) i n a d i v o rce act i o n b as ed o n t h e

3 Aft er t he t ri al co u rt en tered t h e fi nal ju d g m en t an d d i v o rce d ecree, t h e W i fe

fi led a m o t i o n fo r at t orn ey fees t o as s ert a cl ai m u n d er OCGA § 9

- 1 5

- 1 4

. Th e t ri al

co u rt d i d n o t ru le u p o n t h e W i fe’ s m o t i o n b efo re t h e Hu s b an d fi l ed t h e ap p l i cat i o n

fo r d i scret i o nary ap p eal . To t h e ex t en t t hat t h e W i fe was s eek i n g an am en d ed o rd er

m o di fy i n g t h e g ro u nd fo r t h e award o f at t o rn ey fees

, h er req u es t ed rel i ef co u l d n o t b e

p ro v id ed wh i l e ap p el l at e rev i ew was p en d in g

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (h ) (“ Th e fi l i n g

o f an ap p l i cat i o n fo r ap peal s h al l act as a s u p ers ed eas t o t h e ex t en t th at a n o t i ce o f

ap p eal act s as s up ers ed eas .”); W r i g h t v. Bu r ch

, 3 3 1 Ga. Ap p

. 8 39

, 8 4 2 (1 ) (a) (7 7 1

SE2 d 4 9 0 ) (2 0 15 ) (u p o n t h e fi l i n g o f an ap p l icat i o n fo r di s cret io n ary rev i ew, t h e t ri al

co u rt i s d i v es ted o f j u ri s d i ct i o n ; t h us

, “ a n y a t t e m p t s b y [a] t ri al co u rt to al t er i t s

ru l i n g” on t h e s u b

ject m o ti o n aft er t h e fi l i n g o f an ap p li cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary

rev i ew wo u l d b e v o i d ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

7h u s b an d ’ s eg re g i o u s an d i m p ro p er b eh av io r). W h en th e p art i es ’ s et t l em en t was

an n ou n ced t o t h e t ri al co u rt

, t h e W i fe h ad no t y et i d en t i fi ed t he s t at u t e u n d er wh i ch

at t o rn ey fees were bei n g s o u g h t

. A t a p o in t d u ri n g t h e h eari n g

, t h e W i fe’ s co u n s el

arg u ed g en eral l y t h at t h e Hu s ban d h ad en g ag ed i n m i s co nd u ct t h at h ad u n n eces s ari l y

ex p an d ed th e p ro ceed i n g s

. Bu t t he W i fe’ s co u n s e l st op p ed s h o rt o f p res en t i n g

ev i d en ce s u p p o rt i n g a cl ai m u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 5-1 4 an d ins t ead cl ai m ed t h at at t o rn ey

fees were b ei ng s o u g h t u n d er OCGA § 1 9-6 -2 (a). 4 Becau s e OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 (a) was

n o t t h e o n l y av ai l ab l e au t h o ri t y fo r an at to rn ey fees award

, t h e p art i es ’ res erv at i o n o f

t h e at t orn ey

fees i s s u e d id n o t es t ab l i s h an i n t en t i o n t o carv e o u t an ex cep t i o n fro m

t h e b ro ad wai v er o f al i m o n y

. Acco rd i n g l y

, we reject th e W i fe’ s arg um en t s s u g g es t i n g

an ex cep t i o n t o t h e “ No Al i m o n y ” s et t l em en t p ro vi s i o n

. T h e p art i es ’ wai v er o f

al i m o n y i n t h e s et t l em en t ag reem en t p recl u d ed t h e at t o rn ey fees award u n d er OCGA

§ 1 9-6 -2 (a). See Va kh ar wa l a , 3 0 1 Ga. at 2 5 4 -2 5 5 (1 ) (b ).

4 Th e W ife’ s al l eg at i on s reg ard i n g t h e Hu s b an d ’ s m i s co nd u ct d i d n o t s u p p o rt

a cl ai m fo r at t orn ey fees u n der OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2

. “ An award u n d er OCGA § 1 9

- 6

- 2

d ep en d s o n t h e fi n an ci al ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h e p art i es , n o t t h ei r wro n g d oi n g ; i t i s to

b e m ad e wi t h t h e p u rp o s e o f en s u ri n g effect i v e rep res en t at i o n o f bo t h s p ou s es i n an

act i on ari s i n g o u t o f a d i v o rce.” Ca s o n v. Ca s o n

, 2 8 1 G a. 2 9 6

, 2 9 9 -3 0 0 (3 ) (6 3 7 SE2 d

7 1 6 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

82 . In l ig ht o f o ur deci s io n t o rev ers e t h e at t o rn ey fee award i n Di v is i o n 1 , t h e

W i fe’ s cl ai m o f erro r ch al l en g i n g th e fo rm o f t he award i n t he fi n al d ecree h as b een

ren d ered m o o t

.

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Di l l a r d

, P. J., a n d

Ho d ges , J., co n cu r

.

9