unclean hands doctrine in Georgia

2019See OCGA § 9-11-60 (e) ("The use of a complaint in equity to set aside a judgment is prohibited."); Holmes v. Henderson , 274 Ga. 8 , 8-9 (1), 549 S.E.2d 81 (2001) ("The equitable doctrine of unclean hands ... has no application to an action at law."); Higdon v. Higdon , 321 Ga. App. 260 , 262 (1), 739 S.E.2d 498 (2013) (" 'Unclean hands' is a shorthand reference to OCGA § 23-1-10, which states: 'He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action.' ").

2019See OCGA § 9-11-60 (e) ("The use of a complaint in equity to set aside a judgment is prohibited."); Holmes v. Henderson , 274 Ga. 8 , 8-9 (1), 549 S.E.2d 81 (2001) ("The equitable doctrine of unclean hands ... has no application to an action at law."); Higdon v. Higdon , 321 Ga. App. 260 , 262 (1), 739 S.E.2d 498 (2013) (" 'Unclean hands' is a shorthand reference to OCGA § 23-1-10, which states: 'He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action.' ").

2019See OCGA § 9-11-60 (e) ("The use of a complaint in equity to set aside a judgment is prohibited."); Holmes v. Henderson , 274 Ga. 8 , 8-9 (1), 549 S.E.2d 81 (2001) ("The equitable doctrine of unclean hands ... has no application to an action at law."); Higdon v. Higdon , 321 Ga. App. 260 , 262 (1), 739 S.E.2d 498 (2013) (" 'Unclean hands' is a shorthand reference to OCGA § 23-1-10, which states: 'He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action.' ").

2019See OCGA § 9-11-60 (e) ("The use of a complaint in equity to set aside a judgment is prohibited."); Holmes v. Henderson , 274 Ga. 8 , 8-9 (1), 549 S.E.2d 81 (2001) ("The equitable doctrine of unclean hands ... has no application to an action at law."); Higdon v. Higdon , 321 Ga. App. 260 , 262 (1), 739 S.E.2d 498 (2013) (" 'Unclean hands' is a shorthand reference to OCGA § 23-1-10, which states: 'He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action.' ").

2013Adams v. Crowell, 157 Ga. App. 576, 577 (2) ( 278 SE2d 151 ) (1981).

2013Adams v. Crowell, 157 Ga. App. 576, 577 (2) ( 278 SE2d 151 ) (1981).

2013“Given the foregoing, no abuse of discretion resulted upon the trial court’s refusal to [hold Mrs. Higdon in contempt as to the medical treatments] under the doctrine of unclean hands.” Matrix Financial Svcs. v. Dean, 288 Ga. App. 666, 670 (b) (1) ( 655 SE2d 290 ) (2007). (b) Dr. Higdon also claimed that Mrs. Higdon was in contempt for failing to deliver to him certain personal property from the marital residence as required by the final divorce decree.

2013“Given the foregoing, no abuse of discretion resulted upon the trial court’s refusal to [hold Mrs. Higdon in contempt as to the medical treatments] under the doctrine of unclean hands.” Matrix Financial Svcs. v. Dean, 288 Ga. App. 666, 670 (b) (1) ( 655 SE2d 290 ) (2007). (b) Dr. Higdon also claimed that Mrs. Higdon was in contempt for failing to deliver to him certain personal property from the marital residence as required by the final divorce decree.

1993The principle is based on OCGA § 23-1-10: “He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action.” The phrase “respecting the subject matter of the action” is of primary importance to our consideration here, and was elaborated upon in Sparks v. Sparks, 256 Ga. 788, 789 ( 353 SE2d 508 ) (1987): The unclean-hands doctrine does not bar a litigant from seeking equitable relief unless the misconduct relates directly to the transaction concerning which relief is sought. [Cits.] Along the same lines, *154 De

1993The principle is based on OCGA § 23-1-10: “He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action.” The phrase “respecting the subject matter of the action” is of primary importance to our consideration here, and was elaborated upon in Sparks v. Sparks, 256 Ga. 788, 789 ( 353 SE2d 508 ) (1987): The unclean-hands doctrine does not bar a litigant from seeking equitable relief unless the misconduct relates directly to the transaction concerning which relief is sought. [Cits.] Along the same lines, *154 De

1968As to the doctrine of unclean hands, see Code § 37-112; Griffith v. City of Hapeville, 182 Ga. 333 ( 185 SE 522 ); Tanner v. Wilson, 193 Ga. 211 ( 17 SE2d 581 ); McKinney v. Atkinson, 209 Ga. 49 ( 70 SE2d 769 ); Mid-Georgia Natural Gas Co. v. City of Covington, 211 Ga. 163 ( 84 SE2d 451 ).

1968As to the doctrine of unclean hands, see Code § 37-112; Griffith v. City of Hapeville, 182 Ga. 333 ( 185 SE 522 ); Tanner v. Wilson, 193 Ga. 211 ( 17 SE2d 581 ); McKinney v. Atkinson, 209 Ga. 49 ( 70 SE2d 769 ); Mid-Georgia Natural Gas Co. v. City of Covington, 211 Ga. 163 ( 84 SE2d 451 ).

2020Construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, as the non-moving party, the trial court did not err in 20 100 Trail Trust v. Bank of America, 342 Ga. App. 762, 766-767 (2) ( 804 SE2d 719 ) (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). 21 Id. at 767 (2) (citations and punctuation omitted). 10 denying Sorrow’s motion. “[W]hether [Sorrow] ha[s] acted inequitably is a question of fact not amenable to summary judgment.”22 4.

2020Construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, as the non-moving party, the trial court did not err in 20 100 Trail Trust v. Bank of America, 342 Ga. App. 762, 766-767 (2) ( 804 SE2d 719 ) (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). 21 Id. at 767 (2) (citations and punctuation omitted). 10 denying Sorrow’s motion. “[W]hether [Sorrow] ha[s] acted inequitably is a question of fact not amenable to summary judgment.”22 4.

2019See Swan Kang, Inc. , 243 Ga. App. at 686 (1), 534 S.E.2d 145 ("The party who defaults under the contract bears the burden of proving that the liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty.

2019See Swan Kang, Inc. , 243 Ga. App. at 686 (1), 534 S.E.2d 145 ("The party who defaults under the contract bears the burden of proving that the liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty.

2019The unclean hands doctrine has reference to an inequity which infects the cause of action so that to entertain it would be violative of conscience.") (citations and punctuation omitted); see also OCGA § 23-1-10 ("He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action."). 44 The Contract also provides that "[t]he Brokers herein are signing this Agreement to reflect their role in this transaction[.]" 45 See Golden , 244 Ga. at 688 (4), 261 S.E.2d 703 . 46 Given the Contract's sale price of $1,775,000 for

2019The unclean hands doctrine has reference to an inequity which infects the cause of action so that to entertain it would be violative of conscience.") (citations and punctuation omitted); see also OCGA § 23-1-10 ("He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action."). 44 The Contract also provides that "[t]he Brokers herein are signing this Agreement to reflect their role in this transaction[.]" 45 See Golden , 244 Ga. at 688 (4), 261 S.E.2d 703 . 46 Given the Contract's sale price of $1,775,000 for

2019Moreover, "a plea of duress ... goes to the whole contract," Williams v. Rentz Banking Co. , 114 Ga. App. 778 , 781, 152 S.E.2d 825 (1966) (emphasis omitted), and " OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) ... does not authorize a court to revise or amend part of a judgment while leaving the judgment intact." Epstiner v. Spears , 340 Ga. App. 199 , 202 (1), 796 S.E.2d 919 (2017).

2019Moreover, "a plea of duress ... goes to the whole contract," Williams v. Rentz Banking Co. , 114 Ga. App. 778 , 781, 152 S.E.2d 825 (1966) (emphasis omitted), and " OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) ... does not authorize a court to revise or amend part of a judgment while leaving the judgment intact." Epstiner v. Spears , 340 Ga. App. 199 , 202 (1), 796 S.E.2d 919 (2017).

2019The unclean hands doctrine has reference to an inequity which infects the cause of action so that to entertain it would be violative of conscience.") (citations and punctuation omitted); see also OCGA § 23-1-10 ("He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action."). 44 The Contract also provides that "[t]he Brokers herein are signing this Agreement to reflect their role in this transaction[.]" 45 See Golden , 244 Ga. at 688 (4), 261 S.E.2d 703 . 46 Given the Contract's sale price of $1,775,000 for

2019The unclean hands doctrine has reference to an inequity which infects the cause of action so that to entertain it would be violative of conscience.") (citations and punctuation omitted); see also OCGA § 23-1-10 ("He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action."). 44 The Contract also provides that "[t]he Brokers herein are signing this Agreement to reflect their role in this transaction[.]" 45 See Golden , 244 Ga. at 688 (4), 261 S.E.2d 703 . 46 Given the Contract's sale price of $1,775,000 for

2017See West v. Equifax Credit Information Svcs., 230 Ga. App. 41, 44 (2) ( 495 SE2d 300 ) (1997).

2017See West v. Equifax Credit Information Svcs., 230 Ga. App. 41, 44 (2) ( 495 SE2d 300 ) (1997).

2015Cf. Dixon v. Murphy, 259 Ga. 643, 644 (2) ( 385 SE2d 408 ) (1989) (holding that a mother, who conveyed certain property to her son to defraud her creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding, was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands from seeking equitable relief when her son refused to reconvey the property to her).

2015Cf. Dixon v. Murphy, 259 Ga. 643, 644 (2) ( 385 SE2d 408 ) (1989) (holding that a mother, who conveyed certain property to her son to defraud her creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding, was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands from seeking equitable relief when her son refused to reconvey the property to her).

2015The rule is otherwise if the fault of one decidedly overbalances that of the other.”); Dobbs v. Dobbs, 270 Ga. 887, 888 ( 515 SE2d 384 ) (1999) (holding that one brother’s indebtedness to another did not support an unclean-hands defense when the brother loaning the money did not disclose the amount of the debt until trial); BEA Sys., Inc. v. WebMethods, Inc., 265 Ga. App. 503, 510-11 (2) ( 595 SE2d 87 ) (2004) (noting with respect to an unclean-hands defense that the trial court must consider the misconduct of the petitioner as compared to the conduct of the respondent).

2015The rule is otherwise if the fault of one decidedly overbalances that of the other.”); Dobbs v. Dobbs, 270 Ga. 887, 888 ( 515 SE2d 384 ) (1999) (holding that one brother’s indebtedness to another did not support an unclean-hands defense when the brother loaning the money did not disclose the amount of the debt until trial); BEA Sys., Inc. v. WebMethods, Inc., 265 Ga. App. 503, 510-11 (2) ( 595 SE2d 87 ) (2004) (noting with respect to an unclean-hands defense that the trial court must consider the misconduct of the petitioner as compared to the conduct of the respondent).

2015The rule is otherwise if the fault of one decidedly overbalances that of the other.”); Dobbs v. Dobbs, 270 Ga. 887, 888 ( 515 SE2d 384 ) (1999) (holding that one brother’s indebtedness to another did not support an unclean-hands defense when the brother loaning the money did not disclose the amount of the debt until trial); BEA Sys., Inc. v. WebMethods, Inc., 265 Ga. App. 503, 510-11 (2) ( 595 SE2d 87 ) (2004) (noting with respect to an unclean-hands defense that the trial court must consider the misconduct of the petitioner as compared to the conduct of the respondent).

2015The rule is otherwise if the fault of one decidedly overbalances that of the other.”); Dobbs v. Dobbs, 270 Ga. 887, 888 ( 515 SE2d 384 ) (1999) (holding that one brother’s indebtedness to another did not support an unclean-hands defense when the brother loaning the money did not disclose the amount of the debt until trial); BEA Sys., Inc. v. WebMethods, Inc., 265 Ga. App. 503, 510-11 (2) ( 595 SE2d 87 ) (2004) (noting with respect to an unclean-hands defense that the trial court must consider the misconduct of the petitioner as compared to the conduct of the respondent).

2013Marsh v. Clarke County School Dist., 292 Ga. 28, 29-30 ( 732 SE2d 443 ) (2012) (“[inasmuch as laches is an equitable defense, it cannot be applied to actions at law.”); Holmes v. Henderson, 274 Ga. 8, 8-9 (1) ( 549 SE2d 81 ) (2001) (“The equitable doctrine of unclean hands ... has no application to an action at law”) (footnote omitted).

2013Marsh v. Clarke County School Dist., 292 Ga. 28, 29-30 ( 732 SE2d 443 ) (2012) (“[inasmuch as laches is an equitable defense, it cannot be applied to actions at law.”); Holmes v. Henderson, 274 Ga. 8, 8-9 (1) ( 549 SE2d 81 ) (2001) (“The equitable doctrine of unclean hands ... has no application to an action at law”) (footnote omitted).

2007See Zaimis v. Sharis, 275 Ga. 532, 533 (2) ( 570 SE2d 313 ) (2002). 2.

2007See Zaimis v. Sharis, 275 Ga. 532, 533 (2) ( 570 SE2d 313 ) (2002). 2.

2002Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 225 Ga. 379, 392 (6) ( 169 SE2d 150 ) (1969).

2002Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 225 Ga. 379, 392 (6) ( 169 SE2d 150 ) (1969).

1988See Williams v. Williams, 255 Ga. 264 ( 336 SE2d 244 ) (1985); Carden v. Carden, 253 Ga. 546 (2) ( 322 SE2d 226 ) (1984).

1988See Williams v. Williams, 255 Ga. 264 ( 336 SE2d 244 ) (1985); Carden v. Carden, 253 Ga. 546 (2) ( 322 SE2d 226 ) (1984).

1987Morton v. Gardner, 242 Ga. 852, 855 ( 252 SE2d 413 ) (1979); Atlanta Assn. of Fire Ins.

1987Morton v. Gardner, 242 Ga. 852, 855 ( 252 SE2d 413 ) (1979); Atlanta Assn. of Fire Ins.