Smith v. Smith (2013)

“Thus, while a trial court is not authorized to modify [a prior] decree within a contempt proceeding, it may exercise its discretion to craft a remedy for contempt, including remedying harm caused to an innocent party by the contemptuous conduct.” Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 564 (1) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied); accord Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 301 Ga. 581, 582 ( 802 SE2d 204 ) (2017) (“The trial court in a contempt case has wi…

See Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 564 (1) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (“The purpose of civil contempt is to provide a remedy and to obtain compliance with the trial court’s orders.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); In re Harvey, 219 Ga. App. 76, 80 ( 464 SE2d 34 ) (1995) (the party’s willful refusal to comply with the trial court’s oral order was direct contempt).

In addressing violations of a divorce decree, however, a “trial court may impose additional requirements in [a] contempt decree made necessary by [a] party’s 9 refusal to obey [the court’s] original order.” Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 564 ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013).

In addressing violations of a divorce decree, however, a “trial court may impose additional requirements in [a] contempt decree made necessary by [a] party’s refusal to *556 obey [the court’s] original order.” Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 564 ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013).

See OCGA § 23-4-31 (“[a] superior court shall have full power to mold its decrees so as to meet the exigencies of each case and shall have full power to enforce its decrees when rendered”); Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 565 (1) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (affirming trial court’s authority to deviate from the letter of the divorce decree as necessary to “remedfy] the harm caused by husband’s contemptuous conduct”).

We are also without jurisdiction to consider Moore’s appeal of (i) the order denying his motion for new trial and (ii) the order denying his motion to consolidate cases for purposes of appeal and awarding attorney fees to Law Firm pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 (b) for having to respond to the motion to consolidate. (i) While a motion for new trial is a proper vehicle for attacking a judgment holding a party in contempt, see Berman v. Berman, 231 Ga. 216, 217 (2) ( 200 SE2d 870 …

Cf. Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 566 (5) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying husband’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence of wife’s adultery where husband had opportunity to engage in discovery concerning the possibility of alleged adultery and he chose not to).

But, the trial court 3 certainly could “exercise its discretion to craft a remedy for contempt, including remedying harm caused to an innocent party by [Terry’s] contemptuous conduct.” Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 564 (1) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (Citations and punctuation omitted.) And, in doing so, the trial court can enforce its order by requiring the contemnor to secure something of the same monetary value as that which was set forth in the violated order.

But, the trial court certainly could “exercise its discretion to craft a remedy for contempt, including remedying harm caused to an innocent party by [Terry’s] contemptuous conduct.” Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 564 (1) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (Citations and punctuation omitted.) And, in doing so, the trial court can enforce its order by requiring the contemnor to secure something of the same monetary value as that which was set forth in the violated order.

And a court can “craft a remedy for contempt, including remedying harm caused to an innocent party by the contemptuous conduct.” Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 564 (1) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted).

See Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 566 ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013); Tedoff v. B & L Service Co., 167 Ga. App. 452, 452 ( 306 SE2d 719 ) (1983). 7 However, that discretion is not unfettered.

See Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 566 (5) (748 SE2d 456) (2013) (in divorce case using same test for newly discovered evidence, husband lacked due diligence because he did not cross-examine wife at trial); Timberlake, 246 Ga. at 491-92 (1); Joyner v. State, 267 Ga. App. 309, 312 (3) (599 SE2d 286) (2004) (lack of due diligence where evidence could have been obtained earlier, such as on cross-examination).

See Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 564 (1) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (explaining that a remedy for contempt may include the imposition of additional requirements when necessary to enforce an order).

See also Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563 (1) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (affirming award of dollar value of items divorce decree required husband to return to wife, as remedy for husband’s failure to do so).

See also Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563 (1) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (affirming award of dollar value of items divorce decree required husband to 11 The trial court noted that the $35,000 repair cost estimate was derived from Husband’s evidence on this subject, and neither of the parties has contested this amount on appeal. 2 return to wife, as remedy for husband’s failure to do so).

See Smith v. Smith, 293 Ga. 563, 564 (1) ( 748 SE2d 456 ) (2013) (“The purpose of civil contempt is to 10 2.