Attorney Christine Stadler Argues Contempt Appeals Case Before Georgia Supreme Court

Nov. 14, 2013 - PRLog -- On Nov. 4, 2013, Atlanta Divorce Attorney Christine Stadler argued in the Supreme Court of Georgia that the trial court that handled her client’s previous contempt case had violated terms of the man’s divorce decree and had wrongfully stripped him of his rights to visitation with his child. The lawyer referred to the divorce agreement and previous decisions made by the Supreme Court to argue that the trial court had acted erroneously. The attorney’s arguments for the case (Doritis v. Doritis, S13A1862) can be viewed in a video clip of the hearing that was posted on the website for the Supreme Court of Georgia (http://www.gasupreme.us/media/oa/110413-S13A1862.php).

The first part of the appeals case had to do with dispute over who was entitled to jewelry that had been kept in the marital residence. Attorney Stadler explained that the spouses had taken a video-taped inventory of all of their property. The settlement agreement had established that should the parties be unable to come to an agreement concerning their division of property, they would draw their property list from the video, assign values to the items and have an arbitrator decide how they would be divided. The property of concern in this case was jewelry that had been kept in a safe in the basement. The contents in this safe had not been included in the video-taped inventory. The wife in the case argued that the jewelry was hers, while the husband argued that it belonged to him since he had purchased it with money he inherited.

Attorney Stadler argued that the trial court’s ruling violated her client’s divorce decree in several ways. She said that the trial court erred by ruling that the jewelry should go to the wife, despite the fact that this property was not part of the video inventory or part of the divorce decree. She cited Floyd v. Floyd, in which the Supreme Court had ruled in a similar situation that the parties in the divorce needed go through means other than contempt to determine ownership of property not included in the divorce decree. Attorney Stadler described how the trial attorney had not allowed a hearing to be conducted on the matter. The lawyer explained that the trial court judge also ruled that the money from the sales of the parties’ home could be withheld from her client until he paid the wife for the jewelry. Her argument was that 1) the divorce decree stated that the funds would be disbursed upon the sale, and 2) this decision was in conflict with the Supreme Court decision from Rockmore v. Burgess.

Addressing another key part of the appellate case, Attorney Stadler told the Supreme Court of Georgia that the trial court wrongfully decided that the client’s 17-year-old daughter would not be required to attend counseling to mend the relationship with her father, and that the father would not be entitled to visitation. The lawyer brought up several points of why this was an erroneous decision. First, both sides had already agreed to the counseling. Second, the judge made the decision after privately interviewing the child and without allowing for a hearing on the matter. Attorney Stadler made the argument that this was in violation of the previous Supreme Court ruling from Prather v. Worthly, in which it was determined that visitation should only be denied upon exceptional circumstances. She stated that other factors besides just the child’s statements should have been considered and there was the possibility of parental alienation.

The legal team at Stadler Law Group, LLC has more than two decades of experience assisting families with their legal matters. Individuals throughout Atlanta and Alpharetta can turn to the law firm for personalized representation for various family law issues. Stadler Law Group, LLC offers legal counsel on a flat-rate fee basis. More information about the firm’s divorce practice is available at www.stadlerlawgroup.com/Divorce.