Hines v. Hines, 229 S.E.2d 744 (Ga. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Hines v. Hines, 229 S.E.2d 744 (Ga. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bowerman v. Bowerman (gactapp, 2012-03-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bowerman v. Bowerman
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Assn., 224 Ga. App. 761, 765 (3) (b) ( 481 SE2d 879 ) (1997). 2 No transcript of this hearing has been submitted for our consideration. 3 Earle v. Earle, 312 Ga. App. 139, 140 ( 717 SE2d 720 ) (2011). 4 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) McClain v. George, 267 Ga. App. 851, 854 (2) ( 600 SE2d 837 ) (2004). 5 Brown, supra at 891 (1); Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. 755, 756 (1) ( 229 SE2d 744 ) (1976). 6 Ruskin v. AAF-McQuay, Inc., 294 Ga. App. 842, 844 ( 670 SE2d 517 ) (2008). 7 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. 8 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) McClain, supra. 9 (Citation and punctuation …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dennis v. Dennis
Ga. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. 755, 756 (1) ( 229 SE2d 744 ) (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. King
Ga. · 1996 · confidence medium
All the Justices concur. 1 In re Siemon, 264 Ga. 641 ( 449 SE2d 832 ) (1994); In re Pruitt, 249 Ga. 190, 192 ( 288 SE2d 208 ) (1982). 2 Phillips v. Brown, 263 Ga. 50, 51 ( 426 SE2d 866 ) (1993); Baer v. Baer, 263 Ga. 574, 575 ( 436 SE2d 6 ) (1993); Opatut v. Guest Pond Club, 254 Ga. 258 ( 327 SE2d 487 ) (1985); Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. 755, 756 ( 229 SE2d 744 ) (1976); McNeal v. McNeal, 233 Ga. 836, 837 ( 213 SE2d 845 ) (1975). 3 See OCGA § 9-11-7 (b) (1) (“An application to the court for an order shall be by motion.”); Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. at 756 . 4 Baer, 263 Ga. at 575 ; McNeal, 233 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Smith (2×)
Ga. · 1985 · confidence medium
We must decide whether a contempt action is "an independent action for the support of dependents" or whether it is "a cause of action arising from . . . proceedings . . . in connection with an action for divorce . . ." The statute, provides in part, "A court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident or his executor or administrator, as to a cause of action arising from . . . proceedings for alimony, child support, or division of property in connection with an action for divorce . . ." Under the laws of Georgia, "[A]n application for contempt to enforce an alimony an…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Opatut v. Guest Pond Club, Inc.
Ga. · 1985 · confidence medium
First, we address the trial court’s decision to allow appellee to seek damages pursuant to the contempt motion. “[A] motion for contempt ‘is not tantamount to the filing of a complaint.’ ” McNeal v. McNeal, 233 Ga. 836 ( 213 SE2d 845 ) (1975). “[A]n application for contempt does not come within the definition of a pleading.” Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. 755, 756 ( 229 SE2d 744 ) (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Guest v. Guest
Ga. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
"An application for contempt to enforce an alimony and child support judgment [of this state] is ancillary to the primary action and an incident of the divorce and alimony action.” Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. 755, 756 ( 229 SE2d 744 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lupo v. Long
Ga. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
"Since an application for contempt does not come within the definition of a pleading, it is necessarily a motion as defined in Code Ann. § 81A-107(b), and the provisions of Code Ann. § 81A-152 which require findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court, are not applicable to motions.’’ Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. 755, 756 ( 229 SE2d 744 ) (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blease v. Blease
Ga. · 1977 · confidence medium
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 232 Ga. 697, 698 (2) ( 208 SE2d 498 ) (1974); McNeal v. McNeal, 233 Ga. 836 ( 213 SE2d 845 ) (1975); Word v. Word, 236 Ga. 100, 101 (1) ( 222 SE2d 382 ) (1976); Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. 755, 756 (2) ( 229 SE2d 744 ) (1976).
discussed Cited "see" Phillips v. Brown (2×)
Ga. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. 755 (1) ( 229 SE2d 744 ) (1976). “ ‘[A] motion for contempt “is not tantamount to the filing of a complaint.” ’ [Cit.] ‘[A]n application for contempt does not come within the definition of a pleading.’ [Cit.]” Opatut v. Guest Pond Club, 254 Ga. 258 (1) ( 327 SE2d 487 ) (1985).
discussed Cited "see" Griffin v. Griffin (2×)
Ga. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. 755 (1) ( 229 SE2d 744 ) (1976) and cits.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Carden v. Carden (4×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Hines v. Hines, 237 Ga. 755, 756 (1), 229 S.E.2d 744 (1976) (findings of fact and conclusions of law not required because motion for contempt is not a complaint). [14] McNeal, supra at 838 , 213 S.E.2d 845 (Hill, J., concurring specially).
Hines
v.
Hines
31479.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Sep 29, 1976.
229 S.E.2d 744
Gilbert & Blum, Fred A. Gilbert, for appellant., Evelyn Sisk Fabian, for appellee.
Nichols.
Cited by 26 opinions  |  Published
Nichols, Chief Justice.

The appellant former husband brought a contempt citation against his former wife alleging that she had violated the terms of the court decree by refusing to allow the husband to visit with the children at any time or at any place and that she had also violated the order by not maintaining insurance on the automobile given to her by the court decree which has caused problems for him with his financing company. The former wife then filed a cross complaint for contempt alleging the husband was in arrears of child support payments, had failed to make the payments on the automobile as required by the decree and the finance company was threatening to repossess the car. After hearing, the trial court found the former husband in contempt of court. The court ordered the appellant to pay[*756] the regular monthly child support payments plus an additional amount until the arrearage was fully paid up. He was also ordered to pay $2,430.60 before the expiration of six months as the value of the automobile decreed to the former wife. The appellant appeals and enumerates two errors.

1. The first enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in not finding the facts specially and stating separately its conclusions of law in accordance with Ga. L. 1969, pp. 645, 646; 1970, pp. 170, 171 (Code Ann. § 8LA-152 (a)).

An application for contempt to enforce an alimony and child support judgment is ancillary to the primary action and an incident of the divorce and alimony action. Taylor v. Taylor, 216 Ga. 767, 768 (119 SE2d 571) (1961); Sorrells v. Cole, 111 Ga. App. 136, 139 (141 SE2d 193) (1965). See Langley v. Wynn, 70 Ga. 430 (3) (1882) where this court used the language: "... motion to attach for contempt. . .” Code Ann. § 81A-107(a) provides: "There shall be a complaint and an answer; a third-party complaint, if a person who is not an original party is summoned under the provisions of section 8 LA-114; and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served; there may be a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; and an answer to a cross claim, if the answer contains a cross claim. No other pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer.”

Since an application for contempt does not come within the definition of a pleading, it is necessarily a motion as defined in Code Ann. § 81A-107 (b), and the provisions of Code Ann. § 81A-152 which require findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court, are not applicable to motions. Rowland v. Kellos, 236 Ga. 799 (5) (225 SE2d 302) (1976). There is no merit in this enumeration of error.

2. The second enumeration of error contends it was error to sustain the appellee’s motion to dismiss appellant’s motion for rehearing without inquiring into the contentions of the appellant. The Court of Appeals in Martin v. Martin, 118 Ga. App. 192, 195 (163 SE2d 254) (1968) held: "A ruling or judgment rendered after the [*757] judgment appealed from, if enumerated as error, may be considered by this court if such ruling or judgment could have some effect on the judgment appealed from.” The denial of a motion for rehearing in the trial court does not affect the judgment appealed from and presents nothing for review by this court, which is not presented by an appeal from the prior judgment. There was no transcript made of the hearing on the motion for contempt, or on appellant’s motion for rehearing. Accordingly, it must be presumed that the evidence authorized the judgment holding the former husband in contempt of court and since there was no error of law, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

Submitted August 27, 1976 Decided September 29, 1976 Rehearing denied October 19, 1976. Gilbert & Blum, Fred A. Gilbert, for appellant. Evelyn Sisk Fabian, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.