was filed, the couples engaged in a wedding ceremony. Thewife filed a verified complaint for divorce on Feb. 13, 2008,stating that the parties were married on July 3, 1992. Thehusband answered the complaint that the 1992 marriagehad been dissolved and the complaint should be dismissed.The wife amended her complaint to allege that the couplewas married on Feb. 26, 1996. The trial court enteredan order denying the husband’s motion to dismiss andawarded the wife temporary alimony. The husband appealsand the Supreme Court reverses.The 1992 marriage was dissolved by the 2003 orderof divorce and no valid marriage could be entered intoin 1996. Under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-58(b), the civil judgmentmust not only be signed by a judge, but must also be filedwith the clerk and, unless the court otherwise directs,no judgment shall be effective for any purposes until theentry of the same. Here, the trial court did not otherwisedirect and there is no statement that the order grantingdivorce was to be entered nunc pro tunc. Therefore, itwas not until March 19, 2003, when the decree was filedin the clerk’s office that the divorce decree became a finaland effective judgment. Therefore, the motion to dismissshould have been granted because there was no existingmarriage that could be subject to the divorce action.VISITATION AND DIVORCE/INTEREST RATEMongerson v. Mongerson, S09F0132 (June 15, <strong>2009</strong>)The parties were married in 1986 and were divorcedby a Final Judgment and Decree of <strong>Divorce</strong> filed on Oct.1, 2007. The Final Judgment, among other things, orderedcustody of the couple’s three minor children to the wife,gave limited visitation to the husband and prohibitedhim from exposing the children to his sexual partners andfriends. The decree further required the father to maintaina life insurance policy on his life with the children to benamed as beneficiaries, monthly alimony to the wife foras long as she was enrolled in the educational system andearning passing grades in a program to obtain a collegedegree and to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees of $8,800 withthe option of paying $200 per month with the awardaccruing interest at a rate of 11.25 percent per annum. Thehusband appeals and the Supreme Court affirms in partand reverses in part.The trial court required the husband to maintain alife insurance policy on his own life with the childrenof the marriage named as equal beneficiaries. However,at the time the Final Decree was entered, one child hadreached majority and there was no evidence of specificand unambiguous language that reflected a voluntaryobligation on the part of the husband, and therefore, thisobligation exceeded his legal duty.The husband also claims that the trial court erred inprohibiting the husband from exposing the children to hishomosexual partners and friends. There is no evidencein the record before the court that any member of theexcluded community has engaged in inappropriateconduct in the presence of the children or that the childrenwould be adversely affected by exposure to any member ofthat community. Prohibition against contact with any gayor lesbian person acquainted with the husband assumes,without evidentiary support, that the children will sufferharm from such contact. Such an arbitrary classificationbased on sexual orientation flies in the face of our publicpolicy that encourages divorced parents to participatein the raising of their children. Therefore, the trial courtabused its discretion when it imposed such a restrictionon the husband’s visitation rights and that part of the FinalJudgment is vacated.The husband also makes issue of the Final Judgmentgiving the wife a right of first refusal that requires thehusband to notify the wife when he plans to leave thechildren in the care of a third party and ordered that thewife can decide whether she shall provide care for thechildren in that instance. The husband complains that theparties did not agree on such a provision, however, thejudgment issued by the trial court and the divorce actionis not limited only to the matters upon which the partieshave agreed, therefore, the trial court was in its discretionto include that provision in the Final Judgment.In regards to the attorney’s fees, the Final Judgmentand Decree of divorce did not cite the statutory basisfor the attorney’s fees award, but that omission does notmean that the statutory basis of the award is in question.It is clear from the transcript of the final hearing thatthe trial court properly considered the relative financialpositions of the parties whereas the wife’s income wasapproximately 1/10th that of the husband. Therefore, thecourt properly considered the financial circumstances ofthe parties. However, the husband also challenges theinterest rate imposed on the award of attorney’s fees inthat it is not consistent with O.C.G.A. § 7-4-12 (a), whichstates that “all judgments in this state shall bear annualinterest upon the principle amount recovered at therate equal to the prime rate on the date the judgment isentered plus three percent.” Therefore, the part of thejudgment setting the rate of interest is vacated and thecase is remanded to the trial court to determine the rate ofinterest on the judgment pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 7-4-12(a).The trial court also awarded child custody andawarded visitation according to terms of the parties’stipulated agreement. The trial court order advised theparties that it would entertain a request to review andmodify the current visitation schedule at any time, at therequest of either party and would consider specified factsestablished at the hearing when faced with a request toreview and modify the visitation. Here, the language atissue is an attempt by the trial court to retain jurisdictionof the case and as such, is wholly ineffective. FLRThe <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Law</strong> Review 14<strong>Fall</strong> <strong>2009</strong>
Secret continued from page 1questions on all possible topics can serve the valuablepurpose of educating a witness on what issues areimportant and get them to focus on these areas.Theme DevelopmentNothing is more important than your theme of thecase. Your theme is what the case is all about. It is theframework within whichyou make strategicdecisions about themanner in which thecase should proceed, thepositions you take andhow your client shouldbe prepared for bothdeposition and trial.The theme helps theclient to understandand digest what hisor her case is about atthe most basic level.It provides the clientwith a foundation fromwhich he or she willbe able to respond toany question posed,regardless of whetherthe particular questionwas addressed duringpreparation. Therefore,it is not enough for youas the lawyer to knowand understand thetheme, but it is yourclient who must knowand understand it.It is the witnessconsultant who candevote the time andenergy required to havethe client gain thatunderstanding. Goodwitness consultantshelp elicit from theclient his/her story andassist (when, but onlywhen, they are asked)in the development ofthe theme of the case. Awitness consultant willwork with the witnesson how to focus answerson the case theme,instead of wanderingaround giving less important details. Since it is impossibleto predict each and every area of inquiry that opposingcounsel may pursue, having a theme for your case iscrucial to success. The more in command your client isof the theme or themes of the case, the more prepared heor she will be for his or her testimony, regardless of theultimate questions posed.15<strong>Fall</strong> <strong>2009</strong>
Change language