Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Equity may enjoin the defendant as to transactions involving fraud, trust, or contracts beyond the limits of this state.
(Civil Code 1895, § 4854; Civil Code 1910, § 5427; Code 1933, § 55-112.)
- The language of this Code section is derived in part from the decision in Engel v. Scheuerman, 40 Ga. 207 (1869).
- This section, properly construed, limits the right to enjoin foreign transactions to cases involving fraud, trust, or contract. Laslie v. Gragg Lumber Co., 184 Ga. 794, 193 S.E. 763 (1937) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-5-11).
- A plaintiff cannot, in a court of equity of this state, maintain an action to enjoin a trespass to land located in Florida, although the defendants reside in this state. Laslie v. Gragg Lumber Co., 184 Ga. 794, 193 S.E. 763 (1937).
- Petition charging that defendant husband was seeking to place his property where it could not be reached by his wife (his judgment creditor) presented a situation where upon proof a court of equity could grant prayers for setting aside alleged fraudulent conveyance and transfer to out-of-state resident, as well as alleged fraudulent claims of lien for attorneys' fees, and for appointment of a receiver to take charge of defendant's assets and under the direction of the court sell enough to pay the petitioner the amount now due under her two judgments. Peoples Loan Co. v. Allen, 199 Ga. 537, 34 S.E.2d 811 (1945).
Petition brought against a judgment debtor and other defendants, alleging that they entered into a conspiracy in bad faith to hinder, delay, or defraud the petitioner in the collection of the petitioner's two judgments; and that in pursuance of such conspiracy various properties of the judgment debtor were secreted and fraudulent conveyances were made; and seeking to set aside such fraudulent conveyances and the appointment of a receiver and other relief, stated a cause of action against the four defendants. Peoples Loan Co. v. Allen, 199 Ga. 537, 34 S.E.2d 811 (1945).
Court did not abuse the court's discretion in entering an interlocutory injunction barring further disposition of the proceeds from joint bank accounts pending final disposition of fraudulent transfer and wrongful death lawsuits because badges of fraud indicated an actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a decedent's estate and heirs of a full recovery. The transferor's adult child came up from Florida to withdraw the funds from joint bank accounts in Georgia three days after the transferor was arrested for the murder of the decedent. Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, 706 S.E.2d 634, overruled on other grounds by SRB Inv. Servs., LLLP v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011).
Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by safeguarding the status quo pending final resolution of the creditor's fraudulent transfer claims against the debtors because the evidence supported a finding that the debtors had moved virtually all of the debtors' assets to a series of recently formed entities and other recipients with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors and were likely to continue doing so in violation of the Georgia Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, O.C.G.A. § 18-2-74(a)(1); the purpose of the interlocutory injunction was to freeze the fraudulently transferred assets in place and prevent the debtors from putting the debtors' assets beyond the trial court's reach to satisfy an eventual judgment, thereby leaving the creditor practically remediless. SRB Inv. Servs., LLLP v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011).
Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in entering an interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo pending adjudication of the merits of the creditor's action against the debtors alleging breach of contract and fraudulent transfers in violation of the Georgia Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70 et seq., because the debtors presented no evidence of harm from the creditor's delay in amending the creditor's complaint to seek an interlocutory injunction, and the delay resulted primarily from the debtors' concealment of the debtors' actions and obstruction of the creditor's efforts to discover the details; vague assertions of harm supported by no citation to evidence in the record are insufficient to sustain a defense of laches, and there is a balance between a plaintiff's knowing that a cause of action exists and that interim injunctive relief may be needed and sitting on the plaintiff's rights to the prejudice of the defendant. SRB Inv. Servs., LLLP v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011).
- 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Injunctions, §§ 232, 235.
- 43A C.J.S., Injunctions, §§ 291, 354.
- Jurisdiction to enjoin trespass upon real property in another state or country, 113 A.L.R. 940.
Power to enjoin bringing or prosecution of action under Federal Employers' Liability Act in another jurisdiction, 136 A.L.R. 1232; 146 A.L.R. 1118.
Injunction by state court against action in court of another state, 6 A.L.R.2d 896.
Extraterritorial recognition of, and propriety of counterinjunction against, injunction against actions in courts of other states, 74 A.L.R.2d 828.
Total Results: 3
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-03-25
Citation: 709 S.E.2d 267, 289 Ga. 1, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 921, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 270
Snippet: defendant as to transactions involving fraud," OCGA § 9-5-11. See Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. at 605, 706 S.E
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-02-28
Citation: 706 S.E.2d 634, 288 Ga. 600, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 419, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 151
Snippet: and interlocutory. See generally OCGA §§ 9-5-1 to 9-5-11, 9-11-65(a).[3] A permanent injunction can be entered
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-11-12
Citation: 477 S.E.2d 827, 267 Ga. 372, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3988, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 912
Snippet: be set aside for the reasons stated in Division 9.[5] 11. Greene was not denied effective assistance of