Maneuvering Assets Not Always a Good Idea to Avoid Equitable Division in Divorce

Sometimes a spouse seeking a divorce will attempt to avoid the effect of a division of assets and alimony by clouding his finances.   In Driver v. Driver, S13F0512 (Ga. April 15, 2013), the Georgia Supreme Court reviewed and upheld a ruling of a lower court that equitably divided the assets of parties to a divorce. The lower court had made a substantial award of alimony and assets to a wife after finding that the husband had made troubling claims that his assets were cross encumbered, and that his net worth had substantially declined in value in the period leading up to the filing of the petition.  The main significance of the opinion was the holding that superior courts have ample discretion to make an equitable division of assets that the appellate court will not readily reverse absent harmful error.  

Second Amendment Rights Upheld in Georgia

In Ferguson v. Perry, Case Nos. S12A1643, S12A1644, and S12A1645 (Ga. March 25, 2013), the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the ability of a citizen to seek restoration of his right to bear arms after a criminal conviction. The Court held that the Probate Court Judge had wrongfully denied the petitioner's application for a weapons carry license under O.C.G.A. Section 16-11-129 in violation of his rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Georgia Constitution.   The petitioner had established that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles had restored his rights and that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms had removed any disabilities from carrying a weapon.  The Clayon County, Georgia petitioner had been convicted of moonshining in 1971.

The supreme court reasoned that Georgia law regarding the issuance of weapons carry licenses to citizens acknowledges the disabilities caused by a conviction could be restored following legal process, which the petitioner had pursued.  The court further found that the Probate Judge had no grounds to deny the application, and that the denial of the application constituted an abuse of discretion subjecting the judge to a writ of mandamus to compel issuance of the license to the applicant.  The case stands for the proposition that a Probate Court Judge does not have the right to deny a weapons carry license to an individual who has had his right to bear arms restored pursuant to the proper procedures afforded by state and federal laws.