Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
CHRISTOPHER OBODE, )
)
Petitioner, )
) CIVIL FILE NO. 21-A003155-4
vs. )
)
JUSTINA OBODE, )
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________________________________
MOTION TO INTERVENE OF EMMITT OBODE AND ARNELLE
OBODE AS PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A.§ 9-11-24 AND BRIEF
__________________________________________________________________
COME NOW EMMITT OBODE (“EMMITT”) and ARNELLE OBODE
(“ARNELLE”) (collectively “Intervenors”), proposed intervenors in the above civil
divorce matter, by and through their undersigned counsel, Bobby C. Aniekwu, and file
their Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter pursuant to
O.C.G.A.§ 9-11-24 showing the Honorable Court that the Motion is meritorious and
should be Granted.
In support of this application, the Intervenors rely on the pleadings, affidavits,
documents, Petition for Declaratory Relief, exhibits, Arbitration Award, all matters
of record in the instant case and the brief of law below:
1
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The petitioner Christopher Obode is the natural father of the intervenors and the
respondent is the natural mother of the intervenors (collectively “Parties”). Intervenor
Emmitt Obode resides in the City of Dunellen in the State of New Jersey, while
intervenor Arnelle resides in the City of Union in the State of New Jersey. The
intervenors are legal and equitable owners and holders of fee simple titles to their
respective single family residential places of residence (“Homes”). The homes where
they reside were purchased directly in their personal names, based upon their
respective individual personal credit and history, and neither of the Parties are co-
owners with intervenors in their respective residential homes, nor co-signed on their
behalves to acquire their homes.
Notwithstanding, the arbitrator in his proposed Arbitration Award included the
combined estimated fair market values of the aforesaid intervenors homes as a part of
the marital assets computation of the parents in their instant divorce action. The crux
of the Parties’ dispute involves the equitable division of their marital assets. None of
the parties moved for the Court to set aside the purchase agreements of the separate
homes, nor asked for the inclusion of the values of the respective homes in the marital
assets computation in this case. However, the arbitrator, Hon. Christopher S. Brasher
included the respective values of the intervenors’ property in the computation of the
2
combined marital assets and, divided them “equitably” between the Parties as more
particularly detailed in the proposed Intervenor’s Application for Declaratory
Judgment Complaint attached to their Motion to Intervene hereto as Exhibit 1.
II. ARGUMENTS AND CITATION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY
A. Intervenors Emmitt Obode and Arnelle Obode Should be Allowed to
Intervene as a Matter of Right.
Generally, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-24(a)(2) provides that an applicant may intervene
as a matter of right “when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or
transaction which is the subject matter of the action and he is so situated that the
disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to
protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by
existing parties.”
1 Emmitt and Arnelle Obode have an Interest in their Relevant Respective
Residential Property and Transaction.
The first consideration is that the proposed intervenor must have an interest
related to the property or transaction that is the subject matter of the action and cannot
be remedied in a proper proceeding to protect its interest. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-24(a)(2);
Potter's Props., LLC v. VNS Corp., 306 Ga. App. 621, 623 (2010). Here, Emmitt
Obode has an ownership interest in his personal single reidential real property, which
3
includes an interest in the construction costs and certain other responsibilities. This
is a subject matter of the dispute in this divorce lawsuit which seeks to include the
value of intervenor’s property as a marital asset of the parties. As such, Emmitt Obode
has an ownership interest in both the property and division of marital property of the
Parties at issue, and his interest cannot be remedied in a different proceeding because
the outcome of the pending actions will directly affect Emmitt Obode’s rights on these
same issues. Kubler v. Goerg, 197 Ga. App. 667, 668-669 (1990).
Similarly, Arnelle Obode has an ownership interest in her personal single
family residential real property, along with an interest in the construction costs and
certain other responsibilities. This is a subject matter of the dispute in this divorce
lawsuit. As such, Arnelle Obode has an ownership interest in both the property and
division of marital property of the Parties at issue, and her interest cannot be remedied
in a different proceeding because the outcome of the pending actions will directly
affect Arnelle Obode’s rights on these same issues. Kubler v. Goerg, 197 Ga. App.
667, 668-669 (1990).
2. The Outcome of this Matter Could Impede or Impair
Emmitt and Arnelle’s Interests.
A secod factor is that the proposed intervenor must also show that a potential
outcome of the actions would impede or impair its ability to protect its interest.
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-24(a)(2); Stephens Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v.
4
Wright Bros. Constr. Co., 215 Ga. App. 352, 353 (1994). In the case at bar, the
intervenors seek a declaratory judgment related to whether certain real property
belonging to them should be properly included in the computation of the marital assets
of the parties for the purposes of equitable division of property. Invariably, the
Arbitrator has ruled that the Plaintiffs’ aforesaid real properties should be included in
the computation of the Parties marital assets, and if accepted by the Honorable Court,
the outcome of this action is likely to involve the Court declaring whether Petitioners’
residential property should be considered to be marital assets of the Parties, and it is
likely to affect their ownership interests, cloud titles to their aforesaid properties and
in effect unduly interfere with the peaceable and exclusive use and enjoyment of their
ownership rights in the aforesaid properties.
3. Petitioners’ Interests Cannot be Adequately Represented by the Parties.
Lastly, it is the law in this State that if both an interest and an impediment to
protect that interest are shown, the adequacy of an interest being represented by an
involved party will be decided as a question of fact by the court deciding the
application for intervention. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-24(a)(2); Sw. Ga. Prod. Credit Assoc.
v. Wainwright, 241 Ga. 355, 356 (1978). While the Parties seek similar desire for
equitable division of their marital property, the intervenors have different ownership
interests, along with differing financial circumstances that do not align with the
5
Parties’ interests. The divorce Complaint thus does not and cannot protect Petitioners’
interest adequately.
Accordingly, all of the factors for intervention of right are satisfied, and this
Court should allow Emmitt Obode and Arnelle Obode to Intervene as a matter of right
in this action.
B. Alternatively, Intervenors Should be Granted Permissive Intervention.
Alternatively, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-24(b)(2) allows an applicant to intervene “when
an applicant’s claim or defense in the main action had a question of law or fact in
common.” The statue further provides that the Court should consider whether an
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
original parties. Prejudice is the most considered factor by courts. Sta-Power Indus.
v. Avant, 34 Ga. App. 952, 958-959 (1975). Courts may also look at how much the
intervenor will be affected by the outcome of the action along with other factors the
court deems important. Allgood v. Ga. Marble Co., 239 Ga. 858,859 (1977); Branch
v. Maxwell, 203 Ga. App. 553, 554 (1992).
Applied to this case, the divorce Parties and intervenors share common
questions within the main actions as detailed above, i.e., division of thir marital assets.
The intervenors’ respective legal and equitable interests in their residential properties
will be greatly prejudiced, adversely affected and compromised if the intervenors are
6
not allowed to intervene to protect their ownership rights in the aforesaid residential
properties. Plaintiff’s divorce Complaint seeks to adjudicate the same issues pertaining
to the ownership rights, division of marital assets and inclusion of the values of the
intervenors’ respective homes in the computation of marital assets to be divided
between the parties.
Respectfully, Emmitt and Arnelle Obode Complaint join in all counts of the
Complaint with the Plaintiff. This motion has been timely filed as the Arbitrator’s
Award has not been acted upon by the Honorable Court, and the divorce matter is still
pending before the Court.
For the sake of judicial economy and in order to have consistent relief among
all of the Parties, this Court should allow permissive intervention as an alternative to
the intervention as a matter of right.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Emmitt Obode and Arnelle Obode respectfully
request that this Court allow their intervention as a matter of right, or alternatively,
that they be permitted to intervene.
7
Respectfully filed, this, the 14th day of September , 2023.
Bobby C. Aniekwu & Associates, LLC
Attorney for Intervenors
/s/ Bobby C. Aniekwu
Bobby C. Aniekwu, Esq.
Georgia State Bar No: 019840
1640 Powers Ferry Road, SE.
Suite 225 - Governor’s Ridge Building 24
Marietta, Georgia 30067
404-885-1717 (Tel.)
404-885-1712 (Fax.)
Email: Bobby.Aniekwu@att.net
8
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
CHRISTOPHER OBODE, )
)
Petitioner, )
) CIVIL FILE NO. 21-A003155-4
vs. )
)
JUSTINA OBODE, )
)
Respondent. )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify, that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Motion
to Intervene upon divorce Parties’ counsel, by filing same electronically by means of
the Court’s Tyler Host Odyssey filing system which will deliver same to divorce
Parties’ counsel, and by emailing a copy of same to counsel whose physical and email
address are as follows;
Onyema A. Farrey, Esq. Randy M. Kessler, Esq.
Anene Farrey & Associates, LLC
oanene@anene-law.com rkessler@ksfamilylaw.com
Jennifer Gibbs, Esq.
Gibbs Tillery, LLC
jennifer@jgibbsfirm.com
This 14th day of September , 2023.
/s/ Bobby C. Aniekwu
Bobby C. Aniekwu
9
EXHIBIT 1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
CHRISTOPHER OBODE, )
)
Petitioner, )
) CIVIL FILE NO. 21-A003155-4
vs. )
)
JUSTINA OBODE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
vs. )
)
)
EMMITT OBODE, )
)
Intervenor/Third Party Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
ARNELLE OBODE, )
)
Intervenor/Third Party Plaintiff, )
__________________________________________________________________
INTERVENORS EMMITT OBODE AND ARNELLE OBODE’S
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
INTERLOCUTORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
__________________________________________________________________
COME NOW EMMITT OBODE (“EMMITT”) and ARNELLE OBODE
(“ARNELLE”) (collectively “Intervenors” or “Third Party Plaintiffs”), and
1
pursuant to O.C.G.A. Secs. 9-4-1 et seq., 9-8-1 et seq. and 9-11-65, apply to this
Honorable Court for a temporary restraining order, interlocutory and permanent
injunctions, and Declaratory judgment against divorce petitioner CHRISTOPHER
OBODE (“Christopher Obode”), and divorce respondent JUSTINA OBODE
(“Justina Obode”) (collectively "Divorce Parties"), their agents, servants,
representatives, arbitrators, employees and attorneys, including the individual
respondents, and in support of their application respectfully shows this Honorable
Court the following:
I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1.
Intervenor Emmitt Obode is a resident of the State of New Jersey, and by
reason of filing his instant application to intervene in this case subjects himself to the
personal jurisdiction and, venue is properly laid in this Court.
2.
Intervenor Arnelle Obode is a resident of the State of New Jersey, and by
reason of filing her instant application to intervene in this case subjects herself to the
personal jurisdiction and, venue is properly laid in this Court.
3.
Divorce Petitioner Christopher Obode is an individual resident of the State of
2
New Jersey, and by reason of filing his divorce petition in this Court, submits himself
to the personal jurisdiction and, Venue is properly laid in this Court.
4.
Divorce Respondent Justina Obode is, and at all relevant times hereto was, an
individual and a resident of this State and County. Justina Obode was properly served
with legal process in this case, filed her Answer and issues have been joined.
II. STATEMENT OF CLAIM
5.
Divorce petitioner Christopher Obode is the natural father of the intervenors
and the respondent is the natural mother of the intervenors (“Parents”).
6.
On or about April 23, 2021, petitioner Christopher Obode filed a divorce
complaint against respondent Justina Obode.
7.
On or about June 3, 2021, respondent Justina Obode filed her Answer and
Counterclaims, and issues were joined.
8.
Intervenor Emmitt Obode resides in the City of Dunellen in the State of New
Jersey at 242 Park Lane, Unit 8.
3
9.
Intervenor Arnelle Obode resides in the City of Union in the State of New
Jersey, at 3 Sadie Circle, Unit 3205.
10.
The intervenors are legal and equitable owners and holders of fee simple titles
to their respective aforesaid single family residential places of residence (“Homes”).
11.
The homes where they reside were purchased directly in their personal names,
based upon their respective individual personal credit and history, and neither of the
Parties are co-owners with intervenors in their respective residential homes, nor co-
signed on their behalves to acquire their homes.
12.
In or about August, 2022, Emmitt Obode received approval from a mortgage
finance company to finance the acquisition of his aforesaid residential property. The
home acquisition was completed shortly thereafter.
13.
Similarly, in or about August, 2022, Arnelle Obode received approval from a
mortgage finance company to finance the acquisition of her aforesaid residential
4
property. The home acquisition was completed shortly thereafter.
14.
During the course of the divorce litigation, the case was referred to binding
arbitration by agreement of parties before the Hon. Judge Christopher Brasher for
resolution of all outstanding triable issues.
15.
A final arbitration hearing was held over 2-day period on May 18-19, 2023 with
both parties represented by counsel of their choices.
16.
The crux of the Parties’ dispute involves the equitable division of their marital
assets. None of the parties moved for the Court to set aside the foregoing home
purchases by the intervenors for any reason, nor requested that the fair market or book
values of the respective homes be included in the computation of their marital assets
for equitable division.
17.
In a proposed Arbitration Award entered by the arbitrator on August 7, 2023
which included a determination of the total marital assets of the Parties, the arbitrator
included the combined estimated fair market values of the intervenors’ residential
homes as a part of the marital assets for equitable division between the parties.
5
COUNT VII - INJUNCTIVE DECLARATORY RELIEF
18.
The Intervenors repeat and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 5 through 17 above as though more fully stated herein.
19.
The Divorce Parties, by and through the arbitrator, by including the combined
values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets
have exercised and continues to exercise a controlling influence over an interest
belonging to the intervenors.
20
If the Parties and the Arbitrator are not immediately enjoined from including
the combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their
marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes, the
intervenors will incur immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damage in that they
will be deprived of their right to exercise their proprietary rights in the control and
management of their aforesaid homes.
21.
The intervenors have no adequate remedy at law. In order to prevent immediate
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage to intervenors, for which there is no adequate
6
remedy at law, it is necessary that this Court grant the permanent restraining order
prayed for herein, restraining the divorce Parties from including the separate and/or
combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their
marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes.
22.
Intervenors are further entitled, following hearing on due notice, to the grant of
permanent injunctions against divorce Parties and the arbitrator, restraining and
enjoining them from including the combined values of the intervenors’ residential
homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to
their respective homes, and enjoin them from, otherwise depriving the intervenors
from interfering with the intervenors’ quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their residential
homes and all other interests attendant thereto.
23.
If the divorce parties are not immediately restrained and enjoined from
including the combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the
computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective
homes, the intervenors will incur immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damage
in that they will be deprived of their right to exercise their proprietary rights in the
control and management of their homes.
7
24.
Intervenors have no adequate remedy at law.
25.
In order to prevent immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage to
Petitioners, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, it is necessary that this
Court grant the temporary restraining order prayed for herein, restraining divorce
parties and the arbitrator from including the combined values of the intervenors’
residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the
titles to their respective homes.
26.
Intervenors are further entitled, following hearing on due notice, to the grant of
interlocutory and permanent injunctions against Respondents, restraining and
enjoining them from including the separate and/or combined values of the intervenors’
residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the
titles to their respective homes.
27.
In aid of their application for injunctive relief, Intervenors hereby seek under
the provisions of O.C.G.A. §9-4-1 et. seq., a declaratory judgment declaring as
follows:
8
(A). That Emmitt Obode is the the rightful and sole owner of the residential
property located at 242 Park Lane, Unit 8, City of Dunellen in the State
of New Jersey;
(B). That Arnelle Obode is the the rightful and sole owner of the residential
property located at 3 Sadie Circle, Unit 3205, City of Union in the State
of New Jersey;
(C). That the separate and/or combined values of the intervenors’ aforesaid
residential homes are not a part of the marital estate of the divorce
Parties in this case;
(D). That the arbitrator is without authority to include the separate and/or
combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the
computation of the total value of the divorce parties’ marital assets that
are subject to equitable division in this case.
(E). That if the divorce parties and arbitrator are not immediately restrained
and enjoined from including the combined values of the intervenors’
residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, such
inclusion will cloud the titles to intervenors’ respective homes, and cause
them to incur immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damage in that
they will be deprived of their rights to exercise their proprietary rights in
9
the control and management of their respective homes.
(F) That intervenors have no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Intervenors Emmitt Obode and Arnelle Obode restates and
pray:
(1). That process issue requiring divorce Parties to appear and answer this
Application and Complaint as provided by law;
(2). That a Permanent restraining order issue, restraining and enjoining the
divorce Parties and the Arbitrator, individually and, their officers, agents, servants,
employees, and all those acting in concert therewith, from including the separate
and/or combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of
their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes, until
such time as the Court may determine whether an interlocutory injunction should
issue, or alternatively, that an interlocutory injunction issue restraining and enjoining
the divorce Parties and the Arbitrator from including the separate and/or combined
values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets,
and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes, pending a final determination
of and declaration of the rights of the parties;
(3). That a final order issue permanently restraining and enjoining the divorce
Parties and Arbitrator, individually, and their officers, agents, servants, employees,
10
and all those acting in concert therewith, from including the separate and/or combined
values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets,
and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes, pending a final determination
of and declaration of the rights of the parties;
(4). That Intervenors be granted injunctive relief as provided by law;
(5). That Intervenors be awarded their attorneys fees;
(6). That final judgement be entered in favor of intervenors, with all costs cast
upon Defendants; and
(7). The Intervenors be awarded such other and further relief as is just under
the premises to protect their rights and those of the parties.
Respectfully filed, this, the 14th day of September , 2023.
Bobby C. Aniekwu & Associates, LLC
Attorney for Intervenors
/s/ Bobby C. Aniekwu
Bobby C. Aniekwu, Esq.
Georgia State Bar No: 019840
1640 Powers Ferry Road, SE.
Suite 225 - Governor’s Ridge Building 24
Marietta, Georgia 30067
404-885-1717 (Tel.)
404-885-1712 (Fax.)
Email: Bobby.Aniekwu@att.net
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify, that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing
Application of Intervenors for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief upon Respondents’
counsel, by filing same electronically by means of the Court’s Tyler Host Odyssey
filing system which will deliver same to divorce Parties’ counsel, and by emailing a
copy of same to counsel whose physical and email address are as follows;
Onyema A. Farrey, Esq. Randy M. Kessler, Esq.
Anene Farrey & Associates, LLCZ
oanene@anene-law.com rkessler@ksfamilylaw.com
Jennifer Gibbs, Esq.
jennifer@jgibbsfirm.com
This 14th day of September , 2023.
/s/ Bobby C. Aniekwu
Bobby C. Aniekwu
12
Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA CHRISTOPHER OBODE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) CIVIL FILE NO. 21-A003155-4 vs. ) ) JUSTINA OBODE, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________________________________ MOTION TO INTERVENE OF EMMITT OBODE AND ARNELLE OBODE AS PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A.§ 9-11-24 AND BRIEF __________________________________________________________________ COME NOW EMMITT OBODE (“EMMITT”) and ARNELLE OBODE (“ARNELLE”) (collectively “Intervenors”), proposed intervenors in the above civil divorce matter, by and through their undersigned counsel, Bobby C. Aniekwu, and file their Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 9-11-24 showing the Honorable Court that the Motion is meritorious and should be Granted. In support of this application, the Intervenors rely on the pleadings, affidavits, documents, Petition for Declaratory Relief, exhibits, Arbitration Award, all matters of record in the instant case and the brief of law below: 1 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS The petitioner Christopher Obode is the natural father of the intervenors and the respondent is the natural mother of the intervenors (collectively “Parties”). Intervenor Emmitt Obode resides in the City of Dunellen in the State of New Jersey, while intervenor Arnelle resides in the City of Union in the State of New Jersey. The intervenors are legal and equitable owners and holders of fee simple titles to their respective single family residential places of residence (“Homes”). The homes where they reside were purchased directly in their personal names, based upon their respective individual personal credit and history, and neither of the Parties are co- owners with intervenors in their respective residential homes, nor co-signed on their behalves to acquire their homes. Notwithstanding, the arbitrator in his proposed Arbitration Award included the combined estimated fair market values of the aforesaid intervenors homes as a part of the marital assets computation of the parents in their instant divorce action. The crux of the Parties’ dispute involves the equitable division of their marital assets. None of the parties moved for the Court to set aside the purchase agreements of the separate homes, nor asked for the inclusion of the values of the respective homes in the marital assets computation in this case. However, the arbitrator, Hon. Christopher S. Brasher included the respective values of the intervenors’ property in the computation of the 2 combined marital assets and, divided them “equitably” between the Parties as more particularly detailed in the proposed Intervenor’s Application for Declaratory Judgment Complaint attached to their Motion to Intervene hereto as Exhibit 1. II. ARGUMENTS AND CITATION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY A. Intervenors Emmitt Obode and Arnelle Obode Should be Allowed to Intervene as a Matter of Right. Generally, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-24(a)(2) provides that an applicant may intervene as a matter of right “when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject matter of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.” 1 Emmitt and Arnelle Obode have an Interest in their Relevant Respective Residential Property and Transaction. The first consideration is that the proposed intervenor must have an interest related to the property or transaction that is the subject matter of the action and cannot be remedied in a proper proceeding to protect its interest. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-24(a)(2); Potter's Props., LLC v. VNS Corp., 306 Ga. App. 621, 623 (2010). Here, Emmitt Obode has an ownership interest in his personal single reidential real property, which 3 includes an interest in the construction costs and certain other responsibilities. This is a subject matter of the dispute in this divorce lawsuit which seeks to include the value of intervenor’s property as a marital asset of the parties. As such, Emmitt Obode has an ownership interest in both the property and division of marital property of the Parties at issue, and his interest cannot be remedied in a different proceeding because the outcome of the pending actions will directly affect Emmitt Obode’s rights on these same issues. Kubler v. Goerg, 197 Ga. App. 667, 668-669 (1990). Similarly, Arnelle Obode has an ownership interest in her personal single family residential real property, along with an interest in the construction costs and certain other responsibilities. This is a subject matter of the dispute in this divorce lawsuit. As such, Arnelle Obode has an ownership interest in both the property and division of marital property of the Parties at issue, and her interest cannot be remedied in a different proceeding because the outcome of the pending actions will directly affect Arnelle Obode’s rights on these same issues. Kubler v. Goerg, 197 Ga. App. 667, 668-669 (1990). 2. The Outcome of this Matter Could Impede or Impair Emmitt and Arnelle’s Interests. A secod factor is that the proposed intervenor must also show that a potential outcome of the actions would impede or impair its ability to protect its interest. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-24(a)(2); Stephens Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. 4 Wright Bros. Constr. Co., 215 Ga. App. 352, 353 (1994). In the case at bar, the intervenors seek a declaratory judgment related to whether certain real property belonging to them should be properly included in the computation of the marital assets of the parties for the purposes of equitable division of property. Invariably, the Arbitrator has ruled that the Plaintiffs’ aforesaid real properties should be included in the computation of the Parties marital assets, and if accepted by the Honorable Court, the outcome of this action is likely to involve the Court declaring whether Petitioners’ residential property should be considered to be marital assets of the Parties, and it is likely to affect their ownership interests, cloud titles to their aforesaid properties and in effect unduly interfere with the peaceable and exclusive use and enjoyment of their ownership rights in the aforesaid properties. 3. Petitioners’ Interests Cannot be Adequately Represented by the Parties. Lastly, it is the law in this State that if both an interest and an impediment to protect that interest are shown, the adequacy of an interest being represented by an involved party will be decided as a question of fact by the court deciding the application for intervention. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-24(a)(2); Sw. Ga. Prod. Credit Assoc. v. Wainwright, 241 Ga. 355, 356 (1978). While the Parties seek similar desire for equitable division of their marital property, the intervenors have different ownership interests, along with differing financial circumstances that do not align with the 5 Parties’ interests. The divorce Complaint thus does not and cannot protect Petitioners’ interest adequately. Accordingly, all of the factors for intervention of right are satisfied, and this Court should allow Emmitt Obode and Arnelle Obode to Intervene as a matter of right in this action. B. Alternatively, Intervenors Should be Granted Permissive Intervention. Alternatively, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-24(b)(2) allows an applicant to intervene “when an applicant’s claim or defense in the main action had a question of law or fact in common.” The statue further provides that the Court should consider whether an intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. Prejudice is the most considered factor by courts. Sta-Power Indus. v. Avant, 34 Ga. App. 952, 958-959 (1975). Courts may also look at how much the intervenor will be affected by the outcome of the action along with other factors the court deems important. Allgood v. Ga. Marble Co., 239 Ga. 858,859 (1977); Branch v. Maxwell, 203 Ga. App. 553, 554 (1992). Applied to this case, the divorce Parties and intervenors share common questions within the main actions as detailed above, i.e., division of thir marital assets. The intervenors’ respective legal and equitable interests in their residential properties will be greatly prejudiced, adversely affected and compromised if the intervenors are 6 not allowed to intervene to protect their ownership rights in the aforesaid residential properties. Plaintiff’s divorce Complaint seeks to adjudicate the same issues pertaining to the ownership rights, division of marital assets and inclusion of the values of the intervenors’ respective homes in the computation of marital assets to be divided between the parties. Respectfully, Emmitt and Arnelle Obode Complaint join in all counts of the Complaint with the Plaintiff. This motion has been timely filed as the Arbitrator’s Award has not been acted upon by the Honorable Court, and the divorce matter is still pending before the Court. For the sake of judicial economy and in order to have consistent relief among all of the Parties, this Court should allow permissive intervention as an alternative to the intervention as a matter of right. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Emmitt Obode and Arnelle Obode respectfully request that this Court allow their intervention as a matter of right, or alternatively, that they be permitted to intervene. 7 Respectfully filed, this, the 14th day of September , 2023. Bobby C. Aniekwu & Associates, LLC Attorney for Intervenors /s/ Bobby C. Aniekwu Bobby C. Aniekwu, Esq. Georgia State Bar No: 019840 1640 Powers Ferry Road, SE. Suite 225 - Governor’s Ridge Building 24 Marietta, Georgia 30067 404-885-1717 (Tel.) 404-885-1712 (Fax.) Email: Bobby.Aniekwu@att.net 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA CHRISTOPHER OBODE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) CIVIL FILE NO. 21-A003155-4 vs. ) ) JUSTINA OBODE, ) ) Respondent. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify, that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Intervene upon divorce Parties’ counsel, by filing same electronically by means of the Court’s Tyler Host Odyssey filing system which will deliver same to divorce Parties’ counsel, and by emailing a copy of same to counsel whose physical and email address are as follows; Onyema A. Farrey, Esq. Randy M. Kessler, Esq. Anene Farrey & Associates, LLC oanene@anene-law.com rkessler@ksfamilylaw.com Jennifer Gibbs, Esq. Gibbs Tillery, LLC jennifer@jgibbsfirm.com This 14th day of September , 2023. /s/ Bobby C. Aniekwu Bobby C. Aniekwu 9 EXHIBIT 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA CHRISTOPHER OBODE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) CIVIL FILE NO. 21-A003155-4 vs. ) ) JUSTINA OBODE, ) ) Respondent. ) ) vs. ) ) ) EMMITT OBODE, ) ) Intervenor/Third Party Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ARNELLE OBODE, ) ) Intervenor/Third Party Plaintiff, ) __________________________________________________________________ INTERVENORS EMMITT OBODE AND ARNELLE OBODE’S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INTERLOCUTORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT __________________________________________________________________ COME NOW EMMITT OBODE (“EMMITT”) and ARNELLE OBODE (“ARNELLE”) (collectively “Intervenors” or “Third Party Plaintiffs”), and 1 pursuant to O.C.G.A. Secs. 9-4-1 et seq., 9-8-1 et seq. and 9-11-65, apply to this Honorable Court for a temporary restraining order, interlocutory and permanent injunctions, and Declaratory judgment against divorce petitioner CHRISTOPHER OBODE (“Christopher Obode”), and divorce respondent JUSTINA OBODE (“Justina Obode”) (collectively "Divorce Parties"), their agents, servants, representatives, arbitrators, employees and attorneys, including the individual respondents, and in support of their application respectfully shows this Honorable Court the following: I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Intervenor Emmitt Obode is a resident of the State of New Jersey, and by reason of filing his instant application to intervene in this case subjects himself to the personal jurisdiction and, venue is properly laid in this Court. 2. Intervenor Arnelle Obode is a resident of the State of New Jersey, and by reason of filing her instant application to intervene in this case subjects herself to the personal jurisdiction and, venue is properly laid in this Court. 3. Divorce Petitioner Christopher Obode is an individual resident of the State of 2 New Jersey, and by reason of filing his divorce petition in this Court, submits himself to the personal jurisdiction and, Venue is properly laid in this Court. 4. Divorce Respondent Justina Obode is, and at all relevant times hereto was, an individual and a resident of this State and County. Justina Obode was properly served with legal process in this case, filed her Answer and issues have been joined. II. STATEMENT OF CLAIM 5. Divorce petitioner Christopher Obode is the natural father of the intervenors and the respondent is the natural mother of the intervenors (“Parents”). 6. On or about April 23, 2021, petitioner Christopher Obode filed a divorce complaint against respondent Justina Obode. 7. On or about June 3, 2021, respondent Justina Obode filed her Answer and Counterclaims, and issues were joined. 8. Intervenor Emmitt Obode resides in the City of Dunellen in the State of New Jersey at 242 Park Lane, Unit 8. 3 9. Intervenor Arnelle Obode resides in the City of Union in the State of New Jersey, at 3 Sadie Circle, Unit 3205. 10. The intervenors are legal and equitable owners and holders of fee simple titles to their respective aforesaid single family residential places of residence (“Homes”). 11. The homes where they reside were purchased directly in their personal names, based upon their respective individual personal credit and history, and neither of the Parties are co-owners with intervenors in their respective residential homes, nor co- signed on their behalves to acquire their homes. 12. In or about August, 2022, Emmitt Obode received approval from a mortgage finance company to finance the acquisition of his aforesaid residential property. The home acquisition was completed shortly thereafter. 13. Similarly, in or about August, 2022, Arnelle Obode received approval from a mortgage finance company to finance the acquisition of her aforesaid residential 4 property. The home acquisition was completed shortly thereafter. 14. During the course of the divorce litigation, the case was referred to binding arbitration by agreement of parties before the Hon. Judge Christopher Brasher for resolution of all outstanding triable issues. 15. A final arbitration hearing was held over 2-day period on May 18-19, 2023 with both parties represented by counsel of their choices. 16. The crux of the Parties’ dispute involves the equitable division of their marital assets. None of the parties moved for the Court to set aside the foregoing home purchases by the intervenors for any reason, nor requested that the fair market or book values of the respective homes be included in the computation of their marital assets for equitable division. 17. In a proposed Arbitration Award entered by the arbitrator on August 7, 2023 which included a determination of the total marital assets of the Parties, the arbitrator included the combined estimated fair market values of the intervenors’ residential homes as a part of the marital assets for equitable division between the parties. 5 COUNT VII - INJUNCTIVE DECLARATORY RELIEF 18. The Intervenors repeat and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 5 through 17 above as though more fully stated herein. 19. The Divorce Parties, by and through the arbitrator, by including the combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets have exercised and continues to exercise a controlling influence over an interest belonging to the intervenors. 20 If the Parties and the Arbitrator are not immediately enjoined from including the combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes, the intervenors will incur immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damage in that they will be deprived of their right to exercise their proprietary rights in the control and management of their aforesaid homes. 21. The intervenors have no adequate remedy at law. In order to prevent immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage to intervenors, for which there is no adequate 6 remedy at law, it is necessary that this Court grant the permanent restraining order prayed for herein, restraining the divorce Parties from including the separate and/or combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes. 22. Intervenors are further entitled, following hearing on due notice, to the grant of permanent injunctions against divorce Parties and the arbitrator, restraining and enjoining them from including the combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes, and enjoin them from, otherwise depriving the intervenors from interfering with the intervenors’ quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their residential homes and all other interests attendant thereto. 23. If the divorce parties are not immediately restrained and enjoined from including the combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes, the intervenors will incur immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damage in that they will be deprived of their right to exercise their proprietary rights in the control and management of their homes. 7 24. Intervenors have no adequate remedy at law. 25. In order to prevent immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage to Petitioners, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, it is necessary that this Court grant the temporary restraining order prayed for herein, restraining divorce parties and the arbitrator from including the combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes. 26. Intervenors are further entitled, following hearing on due notice, to the grant of interlocutory and permanent injunctions against Respondents, restraining and enjoining them from including the separate and/or combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes. 27. In aid of their application for injunctive relief, Intervenors hereby seek under the provisions of O.C.G.A. §9-4-1 et. seq., a declaratory judgment declaring as follows: 8 (A). That Emmitt Obode is the the rightful and sole owner of the residential property located at 242 Park Lane, Unit 8, City of Dunellen in the State of New Jersey; (B). That Arnelle Obode is the the rightful and sole owner of the residential property located at 3 Sadie Circle, Unit 3205, City of Union in the State of New Jersey; (C). That the separate and/or combined values of the intervenors’ aforesaid residential homes are not a part of the marital estate of the divorce Parties in this case; (D). That the arbitrator is without authority to include the separate and/or combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of the total value of the divorce parties’ marital assets that are subject to equitable division in this case. (E). That if the divorce parties and arbitrator are not immediately restrained and enjoined from including the combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, such inclusion will cloud the titles to intervenors’ respective homes, and cause them to incur immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damage in that they will be deprived of their rights to exercise their proprietary rights in 9 the control and management of their respective homes. (F) That intervenors have no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, Intervenors Emmitt Obode and Arnelle Obode restates and pray: (1). That process issue requiring divorce Parties to appear and answer this Application and Complaint as provided by law; (2). That a Permanent restraining order issue, restraining and enjoining the divorce Parties and the Arbitrator, individually and, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all those acting in concert therewith, from including the separate and/or combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes, until such time as the Court may determine whether an interlocutory injunction should issue, or alternatively, that an interlocutory injunction issue restraining and enjoining the divorce Parties and the Arbitrator from including the separate and/or combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes, pending a final determination of and declaration of the rights of the parties; (3). That a final order issue permanently restraining and enjoining the divorce Parties and Arbitrator, individually, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, 10 and all those acting in concert therewith, from including the separate and/or combined values of the intervenors’ residential homes in the computation of their marital assets, and thereby clouding the titles to their respective homes, pending a final determination of and declaration of the rights of the parties; (4). That Intervenors be granted injunctive relief as provided by law; (5). That Intervenors be awarded their attorneys fees; (6). That final judgement be entered in favor of intervenors, with all costs cast upon Defendants; and (7). The Intervenors be awarded such other and further relief as is just under the premises to protect their rights and those of the parties. Respectfully filed, this, the 14th day of September , 2023. Bobby C. Aniekwu & Associates, LLC Attorney for Intervenors /s/ Bobby C. Aniekwu Bobby C. Aniekwu, Esq. Georgia State Bar No: 019840 1640 Powers Ferry Road, SE. Suite 225 - Governor’s Ridge Building 24 Marietta, Georgia 30067 404-885-1717 (Tel.) 404-885-1712 (Fax.) Email: Bobby.Aniekwu@att.net 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify, that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Application of Intervenors for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief upon Respondents’ counsel, by filing same electronically by means of the Court’s Tyler Host Odyssey filing system which will deliver same to divorce Parties’ counsel, and by emailing a copy of same to counsel whose physical and email address are as follows; Onyema A. Farrey, Esq. Randy M. Kessler, Esq. Anene Farrey & Associates, LLCZ oanene@anene-law.com rkessler@ksfamilylaw.com Jennifer Gibbs, Esq. jennifer@jgibbsfirm.com This 14th day of September , 2023. /s/ Bobby C. Aniekwu Bobby C. Aniekwu 12