O.C.G.A. § 9-5-11 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Scope of section. - 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 Ga. LEXIS 645 (1937) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-5-11). Action to enjoin trespass outside state improper. - 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 Ga. LEXIS 645 (1937). Fraudulent concealment of debtor’s assets. - 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 Ga. LEXIS 342 (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 Ga. LEXIS 342 (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 mur-

der of the decedent. Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, 706 S.E.2d 634, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 151, overruled in part, SRB Inv. Servs., LLLP v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 270 (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 Ga. LEXIS 270 (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. § 182-70 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 Ga. LEXIS 270 (2011).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Injunctions, §§ 11, 292, 305. C.J.S. 43A C.J.S., Injunctions, §§ 291, 354. ALR. 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.

CHAPTER 6 EXTRAORDINARY WRITS

Sec.

Article 1

Article 3

General Provisions

Prohibition

Final judgment prerequisite to appeal; grant of new trial subject to review.

Sec.

Article 2 Mandamus

When mandamus may issue; exceptions. Not a private remedy; enforcement of officer’s discretionary acts. Enforcement of officer’s duties under Title 5. Enforcement of corporation’s public duty. What interest required to enforce public right. Loss prerequisite to enforcing private right. Mandamus not granted where fruitless, nor on suspicion. Time of hearing; notice; how and when issues of fact determined. Appeal.

Cross references. Requirement that, in cases involving mandamus, prohibition, or quo warranto, jury return only special verdict upon request of party, § 9-11-49.

Prohibition counterpart of mandamus. When writ granted; time for return; trial of fact issues. Prohibition against executive and military officers; Governor exempt. Article 4 Quo Warranto

For what purpose quo warranto may issue; who may bring action. Writ lies against civil and military officers; Governor exempt. When granted; how issues of fact tried. Service of writ and process. How issues of law determined; time for final determination; appeal; application to issues of fact. Jury trial where facts at issue; time of trial; continuances. Disposition of books and papers by judgment.

Supersedeas, Rules of the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia, Rule 40.

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS