Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
JONATHAN HOWARD DUDLEY, *
*
Petitioner, * CIVIL ACTION
* FILE NO.: 19FM3068
v. *
*
TAKEISHA T. DUDLEY, * HONORABLE STACEY K. HYDRICK
*
Respondent. *
*
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
______________________________________________________________________
The above-styled matter came before the Court on Petitioner’s [hereinafter
Dad’s] Motion for Attorney’s and Respondent’s [hereinafter Mom’s] Motion for Attorney’s
Fees on the 30th day of January 2024. The parties appeared upon properly being
served. Dad was represented by Nathaniel Blackmon, and Mom was represented by
Cherese C. Clark-Wilson. Upon consideration of both Motion(s) for Attorney’s Fees, the
pleadings in the record, and the evidence and argument presented by both sides, the
Court FINDS as follows:
I. BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case has a long and tortured procedural history. The parties were married
on January 24, 2014. and have two children, to wit: E.R.D., a female, born in 2015 and
J.T.D., a male, born in 2017. Dad filed his Petition for Divorce on March 7, 2019, on the
grounds that the marriage was irretrievably broken pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(13).
Mom acknowledged service of the Petition on March 14, 2019, and filed her Answer and
Counterclaim for Divorce on March 28, 2019. Mom also filed a Counterclaim for
Divorce based on the grounds that the marriage was irretrievably broken with no hope
of reconciliation pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(13), adultery on the part of Dad pursuant
to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(6), habitual intoxication by Dad pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(9),
and habitual drug addiction by Dad pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(12).
On March 29, 2019, Mom (through her previous counsel) filed a Motion for an
Ex-Parte Order, or in the alternative, Emergency Hearing, asking the Court to require
Dad to submit to a Hair Follicle Drug Screen and Urine Drug Screen based on Dad’s
history of alcohol and drug abuse.
The parties were also involved in multiple discovery disputes throughout the
litigation. On June 21, 2019, the Mom’s Former Counsel filed a Motion to Compel and
Motion to Extend Time for Mediation due to Dad’s failure to provide any discovery
responses to the Mom’s Discovery Requests, arguing they could not mediate effectively
without adequate discovery responses.
On October 14, 2019, Mom’s Motion for Ex-Parte Order was granted, and the
Court entered an Order requiring Dad to “submit to a five (5) panel hair Follicle Drug
Screen and a five (5) panel Urine Drug Screen. The Court also ordered Dad to provide
full and complete responsive documents and answers to all of Discovery requests by
5:00 p.m. on the 28th day of October 2019. Nothing else was filed in the case until July
2020.
On July 2, 2020, Dad’s new counsel, Nathaniel Blackmon, filed an entry of
appearance. On November 11, 2020, Mom’s new counsel, Cherese C. Clark-Wilson,
filed her entry of appearance. On April 12, 2021, the parties were ordered to mediate.
2
On April 16, 2021, Mom filed a Motion for Contempt and Motion for Attorney’s
fees for Dad’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations. A contempt hearing was
held June 29, 2021, and the Court held Dad in willful contempt. Dad was ordered to
provide full and complete responses and responsive documents to Mom’s discovery
requests by July 6, 2021, and to pay $2,628.53 in attorney’s fees within thirty (30) days
of entry of the Order. The Order was filed September 23, 2021.
On July 12, 2021, the parties attended mediation and reached an impasse.
On July 14, 2021, Dad filed a Demand for Jury Trial.
On July 22, 2021, Mom filed a Motion for Contempt and Motion for Interim
Attorney’s Fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§§19-9-2, 19-9-3(g) and 9-15-14(a) and (b),
because of Dad’s failure to comply with the October 14, 2019, Order compelling his
discovery responses. On August 6, 2021, Dad filed a Motion to Dismiss and a
competing Request for Attorney’s Fees.
On September 28, 2021, the parties appeared for a motions hearing on Mom’s
Motions for Contempt and For Interim Attorney’s Fees. The hearing was reset for
December 2021, and then reset again for January 2022.
On January 27, 2022, the parties appeared for a Zoom Motions Hearing on
Mom’s July 2021 Motion for Interim Attorney’s Fees. The parties were placed in a
breakout room to discuss the motion, after which they jointly requested the matter be
continued.
3
On April 25, 2022, the Motion for Interim Fees was finally heard and was denied
by the Court1. The Court instructed Mr. Blackmon to prepare the Order and to include
the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed Order was not
submitted until November 2022, and did not include all the requested information. The
Court instructed Mr. Blackmon to resubmit the Order, but he did not do so until June 20,
2023. Mom asserted various objections to the language of the revised proposed Order.
Due the substantial delay between the hearing and the submission of the revised Order,
as well as the objections asserted by Mom, the Court did not enter the Order at that
time to allow the parties to address their issues at the next hearing.2
The parties next appeared for a pretrial conference on June 21, 2023. At this
conference, the Court outlined deadlines in preparation for the final trial, instructed the
parties to submit a consolidated pretrial order, and specially set the case for a final jury
trial for September 26-28, 2023. The Court ordered that the parties disclose all expert
witnesses for trial by July 14, 2023, and set a deadline to submit proposed jury charges
and file all outstanding motion(s) no later than August 31, 2023. A final pretrial motions
hearing was scheduled for September 11, 2023. The parties agreed they would each
obtain their own appraisals of the marital residence prior to trial.
On July 10, 2023, Dad filed his Notice of the Affirmative Defense of Condonation.
On July 12, 2023, Mom filed her 3rd Motion for Contempt and Motion for
Attorney’s Fees.
1
The Court reserved ruling on the Motion for Contempt.
2
The parties addressed their issues with the revised proposed Order submitted by Mr. Blackmon at the
September 11, 2023, Motions hearing. The Court’s ruling on the July 2021, Motion was ultimately
included in the Court’s September 22, 2023, Order.
4
On July 14, 2023, Mom filed her certificate of service indicating Dad was served
with a copy of Mom’s expert witness disclosure that same date.
On July 17, 2023, Dad filed his Expert Witness Disclosure, three days after the
deadline set by the Court had passed.
On July 25, 2023, Dad filed an Amended Complaint for Divorce adding cruel
treatment pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(10) as another ground for divorce.
On August 2, 2023, the parties submitted what was supposed to be a
consolidated pretrial order, however many issues were remaining for the Court to
decide. On August 31, 2023, Mom filed her Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Motion in Limine
to Exclude Evidence Not Disclosed, and Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence related
to Dad’s affirmative defense of condonation and amended grounds for divorce, including
cruel treatment. Dad also had a pending oral motion to quash and a motion for Mom to
sit for a deposition.
On September 7, 2023, the Court informed counsel to be prepared on
September 1, 2023, to address (1) all outstanding motion(s), (2) all issues regarding the
consolidated pretrial order to finalize and enter the same, (3) all issues related to the
proposed order submitted by Dad’s Counsel regarding attorney’s fees from the hearing
that took place on April 25, 2022, and (4) number of jurors requested for final trial.
Mom’s Counsel also requested finding of facts from the Motion(s) Hearing, which was
included in the Order ultimately entered.
On September 11, 2023, the parties appeared for a lengthy Motions Hearing on
all the outstanding motions. The Court granted Mom’s Motion in Limine regarding Dad’s
late disclosed expert witness; Mom’s Motion in Limine regarding condonation and cruel
5
conduct was denied, but the Court allowed Mom to depose Dad about those issues and
Ordered Dad to pay the costs. The Court declined to hold Dad in contempt for failing to
disclose the drug test results to Mom. The parties were each going to get their own
appraisal of the marital residence and they were to submit a consolidated PTO by the
end of day. The Court entered a written Order on September 22, 2023, reflecting the
above rulings and specifically reserved ruling on the issue of attorney’s fees.
Additional motions continued to be filed between the date of the final hearing and
the trial date.
On or about September 26, 2023, the parties appeared for Final Jury Trial and
were able to reach a final agreement on all issues and reserved the issues of attorney’s
fees. On November 9, 2023, the Court entered the Consent Final Judgment and Decree
of Divorce reserving the issue of attorney’s fees for a later hearing date. This Order
contains the Court’s rulings including findings of fact and conclusion of law from the
January 30, 2024, final hearing on both parties’ motion(s) for attorney’s fees.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Dad and Mom were married on January 24, 2014, and have lived in a bona fide
state of separation since February 15, 2019.
2. Dad vacated the marital residence located at 5305 Antelope Lane, Stone
Mountain, Georgia (hereinafter “Marital Residence”), on or about February 15, 2019.
3. Since vacating the Marital Residence in February 2019, Dad did not make any
payments towards the mortgage, expenses, repairs, utility bills, or any other expense
associated with the care and maintenance of the Marital Residence.
6
4. Dad filed the instant divorce action on or about March 7, 2019.
5. Dad alleged grounds for him seeking divorce was that the “marriage between the
parties is irretrievably broken.”
6. Dad also prayed for joint legal and joint physical custody of the parties two minor
children, to wit: E.R.R, a female born in 2015, and J.T.D., a male born in 2017.
7. Mom acknowledged service on or about March 14, 2019, and filed her Answer
and Counterclaim on March 28, 2019.
8. Mom counterclaimed for a divorce on the grounds of adultery pursuant to
O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(6), habitual intoxication pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(9), habitual
drug addiction pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(12), and that the marriage was irretrievably
broken pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(13). Mom also requested attorney’s fees
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-6-2.
A. DAD’S FAILURE TO FULLY AND TIMELY RESPOND TO
MOM’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS
9. On March 29, 2019, Mom filed her Motion for Ex-Parte Order, or in the
alternative, Emergency Hearing on Hair Follicle Drug Screen, Urine Drug Screen, and
Order Not to Cut or Remove Hair.
10. On April 22, 2019, Mom properly served Dad with her First Continuing
Interrogatories, First Request for Production of Documents and Notice to Produce
(hereinafter referenced as “Discovery Requests.”)
11. On October 14, 2019, the Court ordered Dad to submit to a five (5) panel hair
follicle drug screen and a five (5) panel Urine Drug Screen at ay Quest Laboratory
location before 4:30 p.m. on October 28, 2019.
12. The results of the drug test results were to be provided directly to the Court.
7
13. The Court FINDS that Dad did NOT comply with the Court’s Order as he did not
submit to the drug test until April 2023.
14. Dad’s responses to the Discovery Requests were due on or about May 28, 2019.
15. Dad failed to provide any responses to Mom’s Discovery Requests.
16. On or about June 21, 2019, Mom’s former Counsel filed a Motion to Compel and
Motion to Extend Time for Mediation due to Dad’s failure to provide any discovery
responses.
17. Dad’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations thwarted the ability to
mediate.
18. On or about October 14, 2019, the Court granted Mom’s Motion to Compel
against Dad and ordered Dad to provide full and complete responsive documents and
answers to all of Mom’s Discovery requests to Mom by October 28, 2019, at 5:00 p.m.
19. No responses were provided by Dad.
20. On June 1, 2020, Nathaniel Blackmon (hereinafter “Dad’s Counsel” or “Mr.
Blackmon”) filed his Entry of Appearance on behalf of Dad.
21. On or about August 25, 2020, the parties appeared for a Preemptory Calendar.
The Court Ordered the parties to attend Mediation for a second time by November 30,
2020.
22. On or about September 2, 2020, Mr. Blackmon served Mom with Dad’s First
Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories.
23. On September 10, 2020, the Court Ordered the discovery period remain open for
thirty (30) days to ensure the second mediation would be productive.
8
24. The Court further ordered Dad to “provide complete, full, and verified responses
to any Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Notice to Produce
served upon the other party” within thirty (30) days of the Order Extending Discovery.
The Order was entered on September 10, 2020.
25. On or about October 26, 2020, the parties, by and through Counsel, agreed to
extend the discovery period until and through November 6, 2020, and schedule
mediation thereafter.
26. On November 11, 2020, attorney Cherese Clark-Wilson entered an appearance
on behalf of Mom.
27. On January 11, 2021, Mom’s new counsel emailed Mr. Blackmon following up on
Dad’s failure to respond to Mom’s discovery requests.3
28. On January 12, 2021, Dad’s counsel responded and stated he would provide
Dad’s discovery responses by January 20, 2021.
29. On or about January 21, 2021, Mr. Blackmon served some responses to Mom’s
new attorney, Ms. Clark-Wilson. However, Dad’s responses were wholly deficient and
incomplete.
30. On or about February 22, 2021, Ms. Clark-Wilson sent Mr. Blackmon a USCR
Rule 6.4(B) good faith letter regarding Dad’s lack of complete discovery responses
despite having almost twenty (20) months to comply with his discovery obligations.
31. On March 2, 2021, Mom’s Counsel sent a follow-up e-mail to Mr. Blackmon
regarding Dad’s lack of any response to Mom’s 6.4(B) letter.
3
Mr. Blackmon was advised that Mom would seek judicial intervention to compel Dad’s compliance with
discovery if completed discovery responses and documents were not received by January 13, 2021.
9
32. In the 6.4(b) letter, Attorney Clark-Wilson placed Dad and Mr. Blackmon on
notice that she was moving forward with judicial intervention and requesting attorney’s
fees if no response was received by March 4, 2021.
33. That same day, Mr. Blackmon stated he would provide Dad’s supplemental
responses by March 12, 2021.
34. On or about March 15, 2021, Mom received some supplemental responses from
Plaintiff, but his discovery remained deficient and incomplete.
35. On April 16, 2021, Mom filed her Motion for Contempt and Motion for Attorney’s
Fees for Dad’s failure to provide complete responses and responsive documents to
Mom’s Discovery Requests.
36. On June 29, 2021, the parties appeared for a hearing on Mom’s Motion for
Contempt and for Attorney’s Fees for Dad’s failure to provide complete discovery
responses. The Court granted Mom’s Motion for Contempt and Dad was held in willful
contempt for failing to provide complete responses to Mom’s Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents.4
37. The Court ordered Dad, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37, to pay $2,628.53 in
Mom’s attorney’s fees, within thirty (30) days of the Order on Motion for Contempt which
was entered on September 23, 2021. The Court also ordered Dad to provide complete
responses to Mom’s Discovery requests by July 6, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. The parties
discussed scheduling this case for a final hearing for August 4, 2021, but Attorney Clark
4
Prior to the hearing, Dad and Mr. Blackmon were served with a notice to produce the outstanding
discovery responses at the hearing, but they failed to do so.
10
Wilson had a conflict. The Court agreed to place the case on its next available bench
trial calendar.
38. Dad failed to pay $2,628.53 attorney’s fees within thirty (30) days of Order on
Motion for Contempt. 5 Dad also failed to provide complete responses to Mom’s First
Continuing Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by the Court
ordered deadline of July 6, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.
39. The parties attended mediation on July 12, 2021, but reached an impasse.
40. The Court FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon intentionally and unnecessarily
expanded the litigation and interposed delay by failing to fully respond to Mom’s multiple
Discovery Requests and 6.4 letter.
B. DAD’S JURY TRIAL DEMAND
41. On July 14, 2021, Dad filed a Demand for Jury Trial.
42. On July 16, 2021, Attorney Clark Wilson sent Mr. Blackmon an email putting him
on notice that she believes the demand for jury trial was a “a delay tactic” and
unnecessarily expanded the litigation.6
43. Mr. Blackmon acknowledged in open Court at pre-trial hearings that Dad could
not afford litigation, but still insisted this matter be heard by a jury. Mr. Blackmon was
advised a jury trial will require both sides to incur additional attorneys’ fees for them to
adequately prepare.
5
Dad did not remit payment of the $2,628.53 in attorney’s fees until July 12, 2023.
6
Specifically, the e-mail correspondence stated, “Given the jury demand for a jury trial and documents still
outstanding and need supplementation, please advise when your client can sit for a deposition in
preparation for trial.” Mom’s Counsel provided five (5) dates to take Dad’s deposition and the deposition
would be noticed if she did not hear from Mr. Blackmon by the following Monday. Additionally, the e-mail
from Mom’s Counsel explained to Mr. Blackmon that she was requesting $20,000.00 in interim attorney’s
fees “in preparation for a jury trial should [the] demand [for a jury trial] not be withdrawn by the following
Monday at 5pm.”
11
44. On July 16, 2021, Mr. Blackmon stated, in part, “[w]e will not be withdrawing our
demand for a jury trial. I am preparing for a jury trial. And [sic] your threat to request a
Temporary Hearing and further suggesting the court will award you $20,000.00 (along
with your comments during mediation) is precisely why we need a jury trial…”
45. The Court FINDS that while the parties have the right to a jury trial in a divorce
case, the filing of this jury trial demand approximately two years after filing for the
divorce, in the midst of scheduling the final bench trial, during the course of multiple
discovery disputes and contempt hearings, and after an in court statement by counsel
for Dad that he cannot afford the litigation, was done for the purposes of delay and that
it unnecessarily expanded the scope of the litigation causing Mom to incur additional
fees and costs. The Court further notes that there was no mention of a jury trial
demand back in June 2021, when Attorney Blackmon requested a final hearing and the
Court agreed to schedule this case on its next available bench trial calendar.
C. MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
46. On July 22, 2021, Mom filed her Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§19-6-2, O.C.G.A. §19-9-3, O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a), and O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b) and her
Motion for Contempt (hereinafter “Second Motion for Contempt) as a result of Dad’s
failure to comply with the Court’s Order requiring him to submit to hair follicle and urine
drug screens.7 Mom expressed concerns regarding Dad’s extended parenting time if he
is still abusing alcohol and/or drugs.
47. In her July 22, 2021, Motion, Mom also requested interim attorney’s fees
because of Dad’s recently filed jury demand. Mom’s attorney alleged the parties have
7
Mom also requested interim attorney’s fees in preparation for defending and litigating a jury trial in this
case.
12
limited financial resources and that preparing this case for a jury trial (rather than for a
bench trial) is going to significantly increase the parties’ fees.
48. Mom also requested Dad and Mr. Blackmon be jointly and severally liable for
Mom’s attorney’s fees. While the Court denied Mom’s request for interim attorney’s fees
at the (eventual) April 2022 hearing, the Court advised Mom she was not precluded
from seeking them later, at or after the conclusion of the case. After the April 2022,
hearing, The Court instructed Mr. Blackmon to prepare the Order denying Mom’s
request for interim attorney’s fees.8
49. On July 22, 2021, Mom also served Dad with a Notice to Take Dad’s Deposition
requiring Dad to provide all supplemental responsive documents to Mom’s Request for
Production of Documents and Notice to Produce to Dad at his deposition.
50. On July 22, 2021, Nathaniel Blackmon notified the Court via letter that Dad’s
Urine Drug Test results were enclosed, and “[Dad] also took the Hair Follicle Drug
Screen on the same day…” However, Dad did not submit to a hair follicle test until April
14, 2022, over two (2) years after he was Ordered to do so.
51. Dad and Mr. Blackmon refused to provide the drug test results to Mom, despite
Mom’s numerous discovery requests and requests for supplemental discovery.9 And
Dad did not provide the test results to the Court until after Mom filed her Second Motion
for Contempt.
8
The revised proposed Order was not submitted until approximately one year later.
9
Specifically, Mom’s Request for the Production of Documents §34 titled “Supporting Evidence, pg. 22
stating, “[a]ll documents and tangible evidence of any nature which is in the possession or control of you or
your attorney, or which is being held for you by any other Person or entity for safe keeping, which relates
in any manner to any claim, allegation or defense you raise in this litigation and which you have not
otherwise already produced. Evidence shall include, but is not limited to, notes, cards, letters, photographs,
film, pictures, computer printouts, invoices, tapes, voice recordings and clothes.”
13
52. On July 26, 2021, Dad was served with Mom’s Amended Notice to Take Dad’s
Deposition requiring Dad to provide all supplemental responsive documents to Mom’s
discovery requests at his deposition. On the same date, Dad and Mr. Blackmon served
Mom with Dad’s Notice to take Mom’s Deposition.
53. On August 6, 2021, Mr. Blackmon filed a Motion to Dismiss and Request for
Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a)(b).
54. On September 8, 2021, Mom filed and served her Response to Dad’s Motion to
Dismiss and requested attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A §19-6-2 and O.C.G.A. §9-
15-14.
55. On August 27, 2021, Mom served Dad with the Second Amended Notice to Take
the Deposition of Dad and Mom’s Request for Production of Documents and Notice to
Produce to Dad.
56. On or about September 24, 2021, Mom’s Counsel received an offer of settlement
from Dad’s Counsel.
57. In January 2022, Counsel for the parties discussed the status of settlement
negotiations. Specifically, Mom’s Counsel emailed Dad’s Counsel the main points of
contention stating, “[W]e are still concerned about the deadlines and dates for the
payments of the equity as well as how the debts are to be paid and by whom.” The
parties continued their negotiations, but never reached an agreement.
58. On April 25, 2022, the parties appeared for a Motions hearing where Mom’s
attorney Clark-Wilson presented an offer of settlement and proposed parenting plan
mirroring the parties’ settlement negotiation discussions. She reiterated her request
14
that Attorney Blackmon withdraw his jury trial demand to avoid both parties incurring
additional attorney’s fees10.
59. On May 16, 2023, the parties appeared for a Calendar Call and the Court
scheduled the matter as back-up for a final jury trial beginning June 12, 2023.
60. On or about May 31, 2023, Dad’s Counsel was served with an offer of settlement
and proposed parenting plan in lieu of having a final jury trial.
61. On June 9, 2023, Mom filed her Motion for Continuance of Final Trial in part, to
allow her expert, Mr. Jason Roth, time to complete his analysis related to the issue of
equitable division of property, and to continue settlement negotiations.
62. On June 20, 2023, Dad, Mr. Blackmon, and Mom’s Counsel attended a pretrial
Scheduling Conference, in person. The following deadlines were discussed, and agreed
upon by all:
a. July 14, 2023: Deadline for all experts to be disclosed;11
b. August 31, 2023: Deadline for all jury verdict forms;
c. August 31, 2023: Deadline to conduct expert depositions;
d. August 31, 2023: Deadline to supplement all discovery responses and
documents;
e. August 31, 2023: Deadline to file any motions including motions in limine;
f. August 31, 2023: Deadline to submit jury charges to the Court; and
g. September 11, 2023, Motions Hearing: This Court would hear any pending
motions and issues to the parties’ jury verdict forms and jury charges;
10
Prior to this hearing, Mom’s Counsel emailed Dad’s Counsel to follow up if Dad is “still moving forward
with the jury demand or if we can get this set for a bench trial. I do not want to unnecessarily burden the
parties financially with a jury trial if this case [can] resolve (which it should).”
11
Mr. Blackmon failed to timely disclose his expert witness, Dr. Mira Iheme, by the Court imposed deadline.
15
63. During the June 2023 pretrial Conference, Dad and Mr. Blackmon attempted to
relitigate the issue of Mom’s previous request for interim attorney’s Fees, suggesting
she was precluded from asking for them entirely. That was not what the Court Ordered
in April 2022, and Mr. Blackmon’s repeated assertion of his position prolonged the
hearing extensively.
64. Moreover, Mr. Blackmon failed to submit the Order the Court that she instructed
him to prepare after the April 2022, hearing denying Mom’s request for interim
attorney’s fees until November 2022 (which was insufficient, and he was instructed to
resubmit it). The revised proposed Order was not submitted until June 20, 2023. This
also caused additional delay and expense, not to mention the hours the Court had to
spend chasing down the order and reviewing all the filings between the hearing and
finally receiving of the Order to ensure the revised proposed Order was accurate.
D. CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL ORDER, NEW DEFENSE OF
CONDONATION, AND NEW GROUND OF CRUEL TREATMENT
FOR DIVORCE
65. The Court instructed Ms. Clark-Wilson and Mr. Blackmon to provide a
Consolidated Pre-Trial Order incorporating deadlines discussed and agreed upon in
open court.
66. On July 10, 2023, at 11:42 a.m., Mr. Blackmon sent a draft of the Consolidated
Pre-Trial Order to Mom’s Counsel.12
67. On July 10, 2023, at 12:56 p.m., Mr. Blackmon filed a Notice of Affirmative
Defense of Condonation and denied allegations contained within Mom’s Counterclaim
for Divorce.
12
A copy of Mr. Blackmon’s correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
16
68. In ¶5 of Dad and Mr. Blackmon’s Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, he states, “[t]he
Plaintiff filed his divorce alleging irreconcilable differences and cruel treatment.
69. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to disclose any claims of cruel treatment in any of
Dad’s (limited) Discovery Responses or in his Response to Mom’s Notice to Produce.
70. In his portion of the PTO, Dad and Mr. Blackmon first identified an expert witness
Dr. Myra Iheme, (a therapist) as someone who may be present at trial and whose
testimony may be introduced by deposition.13 However, she was never disclosed as a
witness, or potential witness, in any of Dad’s limited Discovery Responses.
71. On July 24, 2023, Mom’s Counsel sent her edits to the proposed PTO to Mr.
Blackmon, including the deadlines agreed to and announced during the June 20, 2023,
pretrial Conference. Those deadlines were not included in Mr. Blackmon’s proposed
PTO.14
72. On July 25, 2023, Mr. Blackmon filed a verified Amended Complaint for Divorce
and asserted a NEW ground for divorce, cruel treatment, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-
3(10).
73. In his Amended Complaint for Divorce, Dad alleged Mom was “the cause of the
demise of this marriage and therefore” Dad requested attorney’s fees as part of his
expenses of litigation.
74. On July 27, 2023, Ms. Clark-Wilson sent Mr. Blackmon an e-mail regarding his
edits to the PTO and her incorporation of the edits into a Consolidated PTO.15
13
The Court notes that the discovery period was closed, and neither Dad nor Mr. Blackmon ever
requested the reopening of discovery. Nor did Dad or Mr. Blackmon ever provide notice to Ms. Clark
Wilson of any deposition of Dr. Myra Iheme.
14
For instance, Mr. Blackmon’s version was silent on the deadlines discussed during the previous pretrial
Scheduling Conference and was woefully incomplete.
15
E-Mail Correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
17
75. On July 28, 2023, Ms. Clark-Wilson sent Mr. Blackmon an e-mail regarding the
third round of edits to the Consolidated PTO. She also advised Mr. Blackmon of her
concerns regarding his portion, Dad’s new allegations of cruel treatment, and her
concern that Mr. Blackmon was intentionally withholding his approval and cooperation in
getting the PTO completed and to the Court.
76. Mr. Blackmon continued to include objection language despite the Court’s Staff
Attorney reminding the parties that the language of the Consolidated Pre-Trial Order
had to be agreed upon.16
77. On August 1, 2023, Ms. Clark-Wilson made edits to reflect the Court’s requests
and resent the edited proposed PTO to Mr. Blackmon.17
78. On August 2, 2023, Ms. Clark-Wilson made additional edits and reminded Mr.
Blackmon of the expert disclosure deadline as discussed in open court during the
Scheduling Conference.18
79. The Court FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to timely disclose claims,
allegations, and expert witnesses, thus causing unnecessary delay, expansion of
litigation, and the incurrence of additional attorney’s fees.
80. On August 31, 2023, Mom filed two (2) Motions in Limine in preparation for the
jury trial, to wit, Motion to Exclude Evidence Not Disclosed and a Motion in Limine to
Exclude Evidence [of Cruel Treatment and Condonation].
81. On August 31, 2023, Mom’s Counsel also filed a Certificate of Compliance in
16
Mr. Blackmon’s edits to the Consolidated Pre-trial Order included language, in multiple sections and
started with “The Dad objects…” Correspondence and the Draft #3 of the Consolidated Pre-Trial Order is
attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
17
A copy of Draft #4 of the Consolidated Pre-Trial Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.”
18
A copy of Draft #5 of the Consolidated Pre-Trial Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “E.
18
serving Dad and Mr. Blackmon with Mom’s Proposed Jury Charges.
82. On August 31, 2023, Mom’s Counsel also filed her Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-6-2, O.C.G.A. §19-9-3, O.C.G.A. §13-6-11, O.C.G.A. §9-15-
14(a) and O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b).19
83. On September 8, 2023, Mom’s Counsel filed an Amended Motion for Attorney’s
Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-6-2, O.C.G.A. §19-9-3, O.C.G.A. §13-6-11, O.C.G.A.
§9-15-14(a) and O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b)to include a request for attorney’s fees pursuant
to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37.20
84. On September 16, 2023, Mr. Blackmon filed his Response to Mom’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37, O.C.G.A. §19-6-2, O.C.G.A. §19-9-3,
O.C.G.A. §13-6-11, O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a) and O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b) by stating, “[t]he
Plaintiff oppose [sic] each and every paragraph of Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fes
as all of the grounds are without merit and contrary to laws [sic].”
85. The Court FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon expanded the litigation by failing to
provide a meaningful response to Mom’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Mr. Blackmon
also failed to place Mom on proper notice of his assertions and unnecessarily expanded
this litigation.
86. The Court further FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon did this to intentionally delay the
proceedings and to prevent Mom from having adequate time to defend her Motion for
Attorney’s Fees. The Court FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon unnecessarily expanded the
litigation by asserting new claims and defenses less than one month before a jury trial.
87. On September 11, 2023, pursuant to the PTO, the parties, Mr. Blackmon, and
19
Mom specifically sought fees against “Dad and/or [Mr. Blackmon].”
20
Mom specifically sought fees against “Dad and/or [Mr. Blackmon].”
19
Mom’s Counsel appeared for a Motions Hearing on Mom’s Motion(s) in Limine and all
outstanding motions and issues in preparation for the upcoming jury trial.
88. The Court heard the following Motions and hereby incorporates her rulings from
the September 11, 2023, hearing herein by reference:21
a. Mom’s July 22, 2021, Second Motion for Contempt and Motion for
(interim) Attorney’s Fees. This was heard April 25, 2022. The Motion for
contempt regarding Dad’s Drug Screens was GRANTED. The Motion for
(interim) Attorney’s Fees was DENIED. However, the Court explained that
Mom was not precluded from seeking fees at the conclusion of the case. 22
b. Mom’s July 12, 2023, Third Motion for Contempt and for Attorney’s
Fees (for non-payment of previously ordered fees and failure to
produce results from drug screen). The Motion for Contempt was
GRANTED with respect to Dad’s failure to pay attorney’s fees from the
Court’s September 22, 2021, Order. However, the Motion for Contempt for
failing to produce the drug test results was DENIED. The Motion for
Attorney’s Fees was reserved.
c. Mom’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Dad’s Appraiser was DENIED;
d. Mom’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Dad’s Therapist Witness was
21
The Order on September 11, 2023, Motions Hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit “F.”
22
After the April 25, 2022, hearing on this issue, the Court instructed Mr. Blackmon to submit a proposed
Order with findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, Mr. Blackmon submitted an incomplete order
in November 2022, and was told to revise and resubmit. He didn’t do so until June 2023. After submitting
the revised proposed Order in June 2023, Mr. Blackmon continued to argue the issue of attorney’s fees
and misrepresented the Court’s previous ruling (that Mom could seek attorney’s fees at the conclusion of
the case). Further, the Court FINDS Mr. Blackmon was ill-prepared during this motions hearing and became
combative with the Court and opposing counsel. While Mr. Blackmon stated he provided the revised Order
to the Court prior to June 2023, he failed to provide any emails or other evidence that he submitted anything
before June. To date, the Court has never received the evidence Mr. Blackmon said he had purportedly
proving he sent the Court the revised proposed Order prior to June 2023.
20
GRANTED;
e. Mom’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Not Produced or
Supplemented in Discovery was GRANTED;
f. Mom’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Condonation and
Cruel Treatment was DENIED.23
89. During the September 11, 2023, Motions hearing, neither Dad nor Mr. Blackmon
supplemented Dad’s Responses to Discovery.
90. On September 16, 2023, Mr. Blackmon filed a Supplemental Motion for
Attorney’s Fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a)(b) and O.C.G.A. §19-6-2.
91. On September 22, 2023, Mom’s Counsel filed her Defenses and Response to
Dad’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a)(b) and O.C.G.A.
§19-6-2.
92. On September 24, 2023, Mr. Blackmon served Dad’s Objection to Subpoenas
and Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoenas to the following entities: Grady Memorial
Hospital, Foundations Recovery Network, LLC, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase,
Synovus Bank and/or First Progress, Commonwealth of Atlanta, LLC, Navy Federal
Credit Union, JAE Financial Group & Associates, LLC, Uber, Robinhood Markets, Inc.,
Self-Credit LLC, Centaurus Financial, Inc., Jackson Enterprise Specialist, LLC,
Progressive American Insurance, American Express, The Prudential Insurance
Company of America, Fidelity Distribution Company, LLC, The Penn Mutual Life
23
However, the Court FINDS that Dad and Mr. Blackmon intentionally failed to timely disclose Dad’s
condonation defense and cruel treatment claim. Therefore, the Court permitted Mom’s Counsel to depose
Dad regarding the limited issues of adultery, cruel treatment, and condonation. The Court also FINDS Dad
and Mr. Blackmon attempted to ambush Mom and her Counsel with new allegations and accordingly
expanded this litigation. As a result, the Court ordered Dad to pay costs of his second deposition.
21
Insurance Company, Jackson Financial Group, LLC, E-Trade Financial Corporate
Service, INVESCO, Lyft, Apex Clearing Corporation, Discover, Lincoln Heritage Life
Insurance, Houseman Investments, LLC, Houseman Investments, LLC, Biotic
Enterprises, LLC, Stewart Miller Simmons Trial Attorneys, The Law Office of Robert
Daniel, LLC, National Life Insurance Company, The Dudley Mac Group, LLC, JD Law
Group, LLC, Rev. John Brown, and Lucas Financial Services, Inc.
93. However, Mr. Blackmon failed to comply with U.S.C.R. 6.4(b) by failing to confer
with Ms. Clark-Wilson prior to filing the Motion to Quash.
94. The Court finds that Mom’s subpoenas to the non-parties were necessary due to
Dad’s failure to provide complete discovery responses and responsive documents
pursuant to Mom’s Requests.
95. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to provide complete responsive documents
pursuant to Mom’s service of her Notice to Produce Documents on more than five (5)
occasions, hence necessitating Mom’s Counsel to subpoena documents from non-party
entities.
96. The Court specially set this matter for a jury trial September 26-28, 2023. Shortly
before the Jury Trial was to begin, Mr. Blackmon contacted Mom’s witness, Ms.
Jasmine Baisten, for the purposes of discouraging her from appearing pursuant to
Mom’s subpoena, causing an expansion of litigation. Such actions are inappropriate,
unethical and in bad faith.
97. On September 26, 2023, the parties, Mr. Blackmon and Mom’s Counsel
appeared for day one of the specially set jury trial. The Court DENIED Mr. Blackmon’s
Objection to Mom’s Subpoenas and Denied his Motion to Quash.
22
98. On September 26, 2023, the parties, Mr. Blackmon and Mom’s Counsel
participated in lengthy pre-trial conferences for the purposes of facilitating settlement.
During these conferences, the parties agreed on all issues related to the divorce case,
including but not limited to alimony, child custody, child support, division of property and
assets, and division of debts.
99. The parties additionally agreed to reserve all issues related to attorney’s fees for
a later date. That language was specifically incorporated into the Final Judgment and
Decree.
100. Despite the parties agreeing to reserve all issues related to attorney’s fees
language included in the Final Judgment and Decree, Dad and Mr. Blackmon continued
to expand the litigation by being ill-prepared and ignoring the language contained in the
Final Consent Judgment and Decree.24
101. On January 30, 2024, the parties, Mr. Blackmon and Mom’s Counsel appeared
for the motions hearing for attorney’s fees.
102. During this hearing, Mr. Blackmon was woefully unprepared, made incoherent
arguments and objections, refused to take direction from the Court, and significantly and
unnecessarily expanded the litigation.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Mom properly filed and served her Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to
O.C.G.A. §19-9-3(g), O.C.G.A. §19-6-2, O.C.G.A. §9-14-15(a), O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b),
O.C.G.A. §13-6-11 and O.C.G.A. §9-11-37. The Court hereby GRANTS Mom’s
Motion(s) for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37, O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a),
24
Dad and Mr. Blackmon also requested attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation while arguing to the
Court that Mom was barred from seeking further attorney’s fees.
23
and O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b) and awards Mom $27,411.36 in attorney’s fees pursuant to
O.C.G.A. §9-11-37, $8,172.92 in attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a),
$50,899.80 in attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b) and $1,809.99 in
attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-6-2.
A. Mom’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37(a)(4)
O.C.G.A. §9-11-37 states, in relevant part,
If the motion is granted, the court shall, after
opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent
whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or
attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay
to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred
in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless
the court finds that the opposition to the motion was
substantially justified or that other circumstances make
an award of expenses unjust.
Throughout the lengthy and protracted litigation in this case, Dad has completely
and unequivocally disregarded his discovery obligations and refused to cooperate in
obtaining and responding to Mom’s Discovery Requests as well as Notice(s) to
Produce. The Court FINDS Dad’s extensive history of failing to comply with his
discovery obligations resulted in multiple Orders to compel (and a prior award of
attorney’s fees), that continued long after Mr. Blackmon’s entry as his attorney.
Both Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to provide necessary documents and
responses related to child support, various financial accounts, debts, and credit cards.
Further, Dad’s DRFA revealed additional bank accounts, debts and credit cards that
were never identified or provided during discovery. As such, Mom was forced to serve
multiple subpoenas to Dad’s employer and various financial institutions to obtain the
24
necessary documents Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to provide. This caused Mom to
incur additional attorney’s fees and expenses.
Dad and Mr. Blackmon continued to “hide the ball,” forcing Mom to jump through
unnecessary hoops to obtain the needed documents to adequately prepare for the Final
Trial. Moreover, this necessitated the filing of Mom’s Motion in Limine(s) to prevent the
undisclosed discovery and documents from being admitted into evidence at the trial.
The Court granted Mom’s Motion. The Court also re-opened discovery so Mom could
gather the information to support Dad’s recently added claims for condonation and cruel
treatment.
Upon review and consideration of the argument and evidence as to Mom’s
attorney’s fees and expenses incurred as a direct result of Dad’s failure to comply with
his discovery obligations, which resulted in a delay of the case and unnecessarily
expanded the scope of the litigation, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Dad and Mr.
Blackmon are to be held jointly and severally liable, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-
37(4)(a), for $27,411.36 in attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation based on the
following conduct:
1. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to respond completely to Mom’s Discovery
Requests and added cruel treatment and condonation.
The Dad filed his Petition for Divorce on March 7, 2019, but did not allege specific
grounds for divorce. It was not until July 10, 2023, more than four years after the
Petition was filed, that Dad and Mr. Blackmon first raised the affirmative defense of
condonation to Mom’s claims of adultery. Then, on July 25, 2023, Dad amended his
Complaint to include a new ground for divorce, cruel treatment. The Court FINDS Dad
and Mr. Blackmon intentionally expanded litigation by asserting new claims and
25
defenses more than four (4) years into the litigation. Had Dad and Mr. Blackmon simply
responded and supplemented discovery pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-26(e), Mom and
her Counsel could have learned of these allegations during the discovery phase of the
case and had time to investigate them. Instead, Dad and Mr. Blackmon waited until 36
days before the final jury trial to do so. Dad and Mr. Blackmon’s conduct amounted to
trial by ambush, which the Court will neither tolerate nor reward.
2. Dad and Mr. Blackmon’s conduct thwarted Mom’s ability to properly
conduct discovery and depositions for the purposes of trial.
Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to produce documents Dad was required to provide
prior to his depositions. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to comply with Notice(s) to
Produce and Mom’s multiple requests for supplementation of discovery. The Court
expressed concern at each hearing that the parties, specifically Dad, needed to produce
ALL the documents and responses to the Discovery Requests and Requests for
Supplementation. However, Dad and Mr. Blackmon only produced eight (8) pieces of
paper, none of which included supplemented financial statements from any of Dad’s
financial accounts.25
3. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to comply with the Uniform Superior Court
Rules prior to filing Motions to Quash.
U.S.C.R. 6.4(b) states, prior to filing a motion to quash, “counsel for the moving
party shall confer with counsel for the opposing party and any objecting person or entity
in a good faith effort to resolve the matters involved. At the time of filing the motion,
counsel shall also file a statement certifying that such conference has occurred and that
25
During the September 11, 2023, Hearing, the Court was provided with an exhibit outlining all of the
documents Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to provide from various financial institutions. The Court hereby
attaches, and incorporates by reference, this exhibit as Exhibit “G.”
26
the effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised failed.”
Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to confer with Mom’s Counsel in attempt to resolve
the dispute regarding the subpoenaed documents, and failed to file a statement
certifying that he, in fact, attempted to resolve the issues prior to filing his motion. The
Court denied Dad and Mr. Blackmon’s Motions to Quash and FINDS this to be another
attempt to thwart Mom’s ability to obtain information and documents that were germane
to this case.
B. Mom’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a)
O.C.G.A. §9-14-15(a) states,
“In any civil action in any court of record of this state,
reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation shall be awarded to any party
against whom another party has asserted a claim,
defense, or other position with respect to which
there existed such a complete absence of any
justiciable issue of law or fact that it could not be
reas
Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JONATHAN HOWARD DUDLEY, * * Petitioner, * CIVIL ACTION * FILE NO.: 19FM3068 v. * * TAKEISHA T. DUDLEY, * HONORABLE STACEY K. HYDRICK * Respondent. * * ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES ______________________________________________________________________ The above-styled matter came before the Court on Petitioner’s [hereinafter Dad’s] Motion for Attorney’s and Respondent’s [hereinafter Mom’s] Motion for Attorney’s Fees on the 30th day of January 2024. The parties appeared upon properly being served. Dad was represented by Nathaniel Blackmon, and Mom was represented by Cherese C. Clark-Wilson. Upon consideration of both Motion(s) for Attorney’s Fees, the pleadings in the record, and the evidence and argument presented by both sides, the Court FINDS as follows: I. BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case has a long and tortured procedural history. The parties were married on January 24, 2014. and have two children, to wit: E.R.D., a female, born in 2015 and J.T.D., a male, born in 2017. Dad filed his Petition for Divorce on March 7, 2019, on the grounds that the marriage was irretrievably broken pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(13). Mom acknowledged service of the Petition on March 14, 2019, and filed her Answer and Counterclaim for Divorce on March 28, 2019. Mom also filed a Counterclaim for Divorce based on the grounds that the marriage was irretrievably broken with no hope of reconciliation pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(13), adultery on the part of Dad pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(6), habitual intoxication by Dad pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(9), and habitual drug addiction by Dad pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(12). On March 29, 2019, Mom (through her previous counsel) filed a Motion for an Ex-Parte Order, or in the alternative, Emergency Hearing, asking the Court to require Dad to submit to a Hair Follicle Drug Screen and Urine Drug Screen based on Dad’s history of alcohol and drug abuse. The parties were also involved in multiple discovery disputes throughout the litigation. On June 21, 2019, the Mom’s Former Counsel filed a Motion to Compel and Motion to Extend Time for Mediation due to Dad’s failure to provide any discovery responses to the Mom’s Discovery Requests, arguing they could not mediate effectively without adequate discovery responses. On October 14, 2019, Mom’s Motion for Ex-Parte Order was granted, and the Court entered an Order requiring Dad to “submit to a five (5) panel hair Follicle Drug Screen and a five (5) panel Urine Drug Screen. The Court also ordered Dad to provide full and complete responsive documents and answers to all of Discovery requests by 5:00 p.m. on the 28th day of October 2019. Nothing else was filed in the case until July 2020. On July 2, 2020, Dad’s new counsel, Nathaniel Blackmon, filed an entry of appearance. On November 11, 2020, Mom’s new counsel, Cherese C. Clark-Wilson, filed her entry of appearance. On April 12, 2021, the parties were ordered to mediate. 2 On April 16, 2021, Mom filed a Motion for Contempt and Motion for Attorney’s fees for Dad’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations. A contempt hearing was held June 29, 2021, and the Court held Dad in willful contempt. Dad was ordered to provide full and complete responses and responsive documents to Mom’s discovery requests by July 6, 2021, and to pay $2,628.53 in attorney’s fees within thirty (30) days of entry of the Order. The Order was filed September 23, 2021. On July 12, 2021, the parties attended mediation and reached an impasse. On July 14, 2021, Dad filed a Demand for Jury Trial. On July 22, 2021, Mom filed a Motion for Contempt and Motion for Interim Attorney’s Fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§§19-9-2, 19-9-3(g) and 9-15-14(a) and (b), because of Dad’s failure to comply with the October 14, 2019, Order compelling his discovery responses. On August 6, 2021, Dad filed a Motion to Dismiss and a competing Request for Attorney’s Fees. On September 28, 2021, the parties appeared for a motions hearing on Mom’s Motions for Contempt and For Interim Attorney’s Fees. The hearing was reset for December 2021, and then reset again for January 2022. On January 27, 2022, the parties appeared for a Zoom Motions Hearing on Mom’s July 2021 Motion for Interim Attorney’s Fees. The parties were placed in a breakout room to discuss the motion, after which they jointly requested the matter be continued. 3 On April 25, 2022, the Motion for Interim Fees was finally heard and was denied by the Court1. The Court instructed Mr. Blackmon to prepare the Order and to include the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed Order was not submitted until November 2022, and did not include all the requested information. The Court instructed Mr. Blackmon to resubmit the Order, but he did not do so until June 20, 2023. Mom asserted various objections to the language of the revised proposed Order. Due the substantial delay between the hearing and the submission of the revised Order, as well as the objections asserted by Mom, the Court did not enter the Order at that time to allow the parties to address their issues at the next hearing.2 The parties next appeared for a pretrial conference on June 21, 2023. At this conference, the Court outlined deadlines in preparation for the final trial, instructed the parties to submit a consolidated pretrial order, and specially set the case for a final jury trial for September 26-28, 2023. The Court ordered that the parties disclose all expert witnesses for trial by July 14, 2023, and set a deadline to submit proposed jury charges and file all outstanding motion(s) no later than August 31, 2023. A final pretrial motions hearing was scheduled for September 11, 2023. The parties agreed they would each obtain their own appraisals of the marital residence prior to trial. On July 10, 2023, Dad filed his Notice of the Affirmative Defense of Condonation. On July 12, 2023, Mom filed her 3rd Motion for Contempt and Motion for Attorney’s Fees. 1 The Court reserved ruling on the Motion for Contempt. 2 The parties addressed their issues with the revised proposed Order submitted by Mr. Blackmon at the September 11, 2023, Motions hearing. The Court’s ruling on the July 2021, Motion was ultimately included in the Court’s September 22, 2023, Order. 4 On July 14, 2023, Mom filed her certificate of service indicating Dad was served with a copy of Mom’s expert witness disclosure that same date. On July 17, 2023, Dad filed his Expert Witness Disclosure, three days after the deadline set by the Court had passed. On July 25, 2023, Dad filed an Amended Complaint for Divorce adding cruel treatment pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(10) as another ground for divorce. On August 2, 2023, the parties submitted what was supposed to be a consolidated pretrial order, however many issues were remaining for the Court to decide. On August 31, 2023, Mom filed her Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Not Disclosed, and Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence related to Dad’s affirmative defense of condonation and amended grounds for divorce, including cruel treatment. Dad also had a pending oral motion to quash and a motion for Mom to sit for a deposition. On September 7, 2023, the Court informed counsel to be prepared on September 1, 2023, to address (1) all outstanding motion(s), (2) all issues regarding the consolidated pretrial order to finalize and enter the same, (3) all issues related to the proposed order submitted by Dad’s Counsel regarding attorney’s fees from the hearing that took place on April 25, 2022, and (4) number of jurors requested for final trial. Mom’s Counsel also requested finding of facts from the Motion(s) Hearing, which was included in the Order ultimately entered. On September 11, 2023, the parties appeared for a lengthy Motions Hearing on all the outstanding motions. The Court granted Mom’s Motion in Limine regarding Dad’s late disclosed expert witness; Mom’s Motion in Limine regarding condonation and cruel 5 conduct was denied, but the Court allowed Mom to depose Dad about those issues and Ordered Dad to pay the costs. The Court declined to hold Dad in contempt for failing to disclose the drug test results to Mom. The parties were each going to get their own appraisal of the marital residence and they were to submit a consolidated PTO by the end of day. The Court entered a written Order on September 22, 2023, reflecting the above rulings and specifically reserved ruling on the issue of attorney’s fees. Additional motions continued to be filed between the date of the final hearing and the trial date. On or about September 26, 2023, the parties appeared for Final Jury Trial and were able to reach a final agreement on all issues and reserved the issues of attorney’s fees. On November 9, 2023, the Court entered the Consent Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce reserving the issue of attorney’s fees for a later hearing date. This Order contains the Court’s rulings including findings of fact and conclusion of law from the January 30, 2024, final hearing on both parties’ motion(s) for attorney’s fees. II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Dad and Mom were married on January 24, 2014, and have lived in a bona fide state of separation since February 15, 2019. 2. Dad vacated the marital residence located at 5305 Antelope Lane, Stone Mountain, Georgia (hereinafter “Marital Residence”), on or about February 15, 2019. 3. Since vacating the Marital Residence in February 2019, Dad did not make any payments towards the mortgage, expenses, repairs, utility bills, or any other expense associated with the care and maintenance of the Marital Residence. 6 4. Dad filed the instant divorce action on or about March 7, 2019. 5. Dad alleged grounds for him seeking divorce was that the “marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken.” 6. Dad also prayed for joint legal and joint physical custody of the parties two minor children, to wit: E.R.R, a female born in 2015, and J.T.D., a male born in 2017. 7. Mom acknowledged service on or about March 14, 2019, and filed her Answer and Counterclaim on March 28, 2019. 8. Mom counterclaimed for a divorce on the grounds of adultery pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(6), habitual intoxication pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(9), habitual drug addiction pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(12), and that the marriage was irretrievably broken pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5-3(13). Mom also requested attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-6-2. A. DAD’S FAILURE TO FULLY AND TIMELY RESPOND TO MOM’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS 9. On March 29, 2019, Mom filed her Motion for Ex-Parte Order, or in the alternative, Emergency Hearing on Hair Follicle Drug Screen, Urine Drug Screen, and Order Not to Cut or Remove Hair. 10. On April 22, 2019, Mom properly served Dad with her First Continuing Interrogatories, First Request for Production of Documents and Notice to Produce (hereinafter referenced as “Discovery Requests.”) 11. On October 14, 2019, the Court ordered Dad to submit to a five (5) panel hair follicle drug screen and a five (5) panel Urine Drug Screen at ay Quest Laboratory location before 4:30 p.m. on October 28, 2019. 12. The results of the drug test results were to be provided directly to the Court. 7 13. The Court FINDS that Dad did NOT comply with the Court’s Order as he did not submit to the drug test until April 2023. 14. Dad’s responses to the Discovery Requests were due on or about May 28, 2019. 15. Dad failed to provide any responses to Mom’s Discovery Requests. 16. On or about June 21, 2019, Mom’s former Counsel filed a Motion to Compel and Motion to Extend Time for Mediation due to Dad’s failure to provide any discovery responses. 17. Dad’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations thwarted the ability to mediate. 18. On or about October 14, 2019, the Court granted Mom’s Motion to Compel against Dad and ordered Dad to provide full and complete responsive documents and answers to all of Mom’s Discovery requests to Mom by October 28, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. 19. No responses were provided by Dad. 20. On June 1, 2020, Nathaniel Blackmon (hereinafter “Dad’s Counsel” or “Mr. Blackmon”) filed his Entry of Appearance on behalf of Dad. 21. On or about August 25, 2020, the parties appeared for a Preemptory Calendar. The Court Ordered the parties to attend Mediation for a second time by November 30, 2020. 22. On or about September 2, 2020, Mr. Blackmon served Mom with Dad’s First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories. 23. On September 10, 2020, the Court Ordered the discovery period remain open for thirty (30) days to ensure the second mediation would be productive. 8 24. The Court further ordered Dad to “provide complete, full, and verified responses to any Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Notice to Produce served upon the other party” within thirty (30) days of the Order Extending Discovery. The Order was entered on September 10, 2020. 25. On or about October 26, 2020, the parties, by and through Counsel, agreed to extend the discovery period until and through November 6, 2020, and schedule mediation thereafter. 26. On November 11, 2020, attorney Cherese Clark-Wilson entered an appearance on behalf of Mom. 27. On January 11, 2021, Mom’s new counsel emailed Mr. Blackmon following up on Dad’s failure to respond to Mom’s discovery requests.3 28. On January 12, 2021, Dad’s counsel responded and stated he would provide Dad’s discovery responses by January 20, 2021. 29. On or about January 21, 2021, Mr. Blackmon served some responses to Mom’s new attorney, Ms. Clark-Wilson. However, Dad’s responses were wholly deficient and incomplete. 30. On or about February 22, 2021, Ms. Clark-Wilson sent Mr. Blackmon a USCR Rule 6.4(B) good faith letter regarding Dad’s lack of complete discovery responses despite having almost twenty (20) months to comply with his discovery obligations. 31. On March 2, 2021, Mom’s Counsel sent a follow-up e-mail to Mr. Blackmon regarding Dad’s lack of any response to Mom’s 6.4(B) letter. 3 Mr. Blackmon was advised that Mom would seek judicial intervention to compel Dad’s compliance with discovery if completed discovery responses and documents were not received by January 13, 2021. 9 32. In the 6.4(b) letter, Attorney Clark-Wilson placed Dad and Mr. Blackmon on notice that she was moving forward with judicial intervention and requesting attorney’s fees if no response was received by March 4, 2021. 33. That same day, Mr. Blackmon stated he would provide Dad’s supplemental responses by March 12, 2021. 34. On or about March 15, 2021, Mom received some supplemental responses from Plaintiff, but his discovery remained deficient and incomplete. 35. On April 16, 2021, Mom filed her Motion for Contempt and Motion for Attorney’s Fees for Dad’s failure to provide complete responses and responsive documents to Mom’s Discovery Requests. 36. On June 29, 2021, the parties appeared for a hearing on Mom’s Motion for Contempt and for Attorney’s Fees for Dad’s failure to provide complete discovery responses. The Court granted Mom’s Motion for Contempt and Dad was held in willful contempt for failing to provide complete responses to Mom’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.4 37. The Court ordered Dad, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37, to pay $2,628.53 in Mom’s attorney’s fees, within thirty (30) days of the Order on Motion for Contempt which was entered on September 23, 2021. The Court also ordered Dad to provide complete responses to Mom’s Discovery requests by July 6, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. The parties discussed scheduling this case for a final hearing for August 4, 2021, but Attorney Clark 4 Prior to the hearing, Dad and Mr. Blackmon were served with a notice to produce the outstanding discovery responses at the hearing, but they failed to do so. 10 Wilson had a conflict. The Court agreed to place the case on its next available bench trial calendar. 38. Dad failed to pay $2,628.53 attorney’s fees within thirty (30) days of Order on Motion for Contempt. 5 Dad also failed to provide complete responses to Mom’s First Continuing Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by the Court ordered deadline of July 6, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. 39. The parties attended mediation on July 12, 2021, but reached an impasse. 40. The Court FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon intentionally and unnecessarily expanded the litigation and interposed delay by failing to fully respond to Mom’s multiple Discovery Requests and 6.4 letter. B. DAD’S JURY TRIAL DEMAND 41. On July 14, 2021, Dad filed a Demand for Jury Trial. 42. On July 16, 2021, Attorney Clark Wilson sent Mr. Blackmon an email putting him on notice that she believes the demand for jury trial was a “a delay tactic” and unnecessarily expanded the litigation.6 43. Mr. Blackmon acknowledged in open Court at pre-trial hearings that Dad could not afford litigation, but still insisted this matter be heard by a jury. Mr. Blackmon was advised a jury trial will require both sides to incur additional attorneys’ fees for them to adequately prepare. 5 Dad did not remit payment of the $2,628.53 in attorney’s fees until July 12, 2023. 6 Specifically, the e-mail correspondence stated, “Given the jury demand for a jury trial and documents still outstanding and need supplementation, please advise when your client can sit for a deposition in preparation for trial.” Mom’s Counsel provided five (5) dates to take Dad’s deposition and the deposition would be noticed if she did not hear from Mr. Blackmon by the following Monday. Additionally, the e-mail from Mom’s Counsel explained to Mr. Blackmon that she was requesting $20,000.00 in interim attorney’s fees “in preparation for a jury trial should [the] demand [for a jury trial] not be withdrawn by the following Monday at 5pm.” 11 44. On July 16, 2021, Mr. Blackmon stated, in part, “[w]e will not be withdrawing our demand for a jury trial. I am preparing for a jury trial. And [sic] your threat to request a Temporary Hearing and further suggesting the court will award you $20,000.00 (along with your comments during mediation) is precisely why we need a jury trial…” 45. The Court FINDS that while the parties have the right to a jury trial in a divorce case, the filing of this jury trial demand approximately two years after filing for the divorce, in the midst of scheduling the final bench trial, during the course of multiple discovery disputes and contempt hearings, and after an in court statement by counsel for Dad that he cannot afford the litigation, was done for the purposes of delay and that it unnecessarily expanded the scope of the litigation causing Mom to incur additional fees and costs. The Court further notes that there was no mention of a jury trial demand back in June 2021, when Attorney Blackmon requested a final hearing and the Court agreed to schedule this case on its next available bench trial calendar. C. MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 46. On July 22, 2021, Mom filed her Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-6-2, O.C.G.A. §19-9-3, O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a), and O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b) and her Motion for Contempt (hereinafter “Second Motion for Contempt) as a result of Dad’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order requiring him to submit to hair follicle and urine drug screens.7 Mom expressed concerns regarding Dad’s extended parenting time if he is still abusing alcohol and/or drugs. 47. In her July 22, 2021, Motion, Mom also requested interim attorney’s fees because of Dad’s recently filed jury demand. Mom’s attorney alleged the parties have 7 Mom also requested interim attorney’s fees in preparation for defending and litigating a jury trial in this case. 12 limited financial resources and that preparing this case for a jury trial (rather than for a bench trial) is going to significantly increase the parties’ fees. 48. Mom also requested Dad and Mr. Blackmon be jointly and severally liable for Mom’s attorney’s fees. While the Court denied Mom’s request for interim attorney’s fees at the (eventual) April 2022 hearing, the Court advised Mom she was not precluded from seeking them later, at or after the conclusion of the case. After the April 2022, hearing, The Court instructed Mr. Blackmon to prepare the Order denying Mom’s request for interim attorney’s fees.8 49. On July 22, 2021, Mom also served Dad with a Notice to Take Dad’s Deposition requiring Dad to provide all supplemental responsive documents to Mom’s Request for Production of Documents and Notice to Produce to Dad at his deposition. 50. On July 22, 2021, Nathaniel Blackmon notified the Court via letter that Dad’s Urine Drug Test results were enclosed, and “[Dad] also took the Hair Follicle Drug Screen on the same day…” However, Dad did not submit to a hair follicle test until April 14, 2022, over two (2) years after he was Ordered to do so. 51. Dad and Mr. Blackmon refused to provide the drug test results to Mom, despite Mom’s numerous discovery requests and requests for supplemental discovery.9 And Dad did not provide the test results to the Court until after Mom filed her Second Motion for Contempt. 8 The revised proposed Order was not submitted until approximately one year later. 9 Specifically, Mom’s Request for the Production of Documents §34 titled “Supporting Evidence, pg. 22 stating, “[a]ll documents and tangible evidence of any nature which is in the possession or control of you or your attorney, or which is being held for you by any other Person or entity for safe keeping, which relates in any manner to any claim, allegation or defense you raise in this litigation and which you have not otherwise already produced. Evidence shall include, but is not limited to, notes, cards, letters, photographs, film, pictures, computer printouts, invoices, tapes, voice recordings and clothes.” 13 52. On July 26, 2021, Dad was served with Mom’s Amended Notice to Take Dad’s Deposition requiring Dad to provide all supplemental responsive documents to Mom’s discovery requests at his deposition. On the same date, Dad and Mr. Blackmon served Mom with Dad’s Notice to take Mom’s Deposition. 53. On August 6, 2021, Mr. Blackmon filed a Motion to Dismiss and Request for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a)(b). 54. On September 8, 2021, Mom filed and served her Response to Dad’s Motion to Dismiss and requested attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A §19-6-2 and O.C.G.A. §9- 15-14. 55. On August 27, 2021, Mom served Dad with the Second Amended Notice to Take the Deposition of Dad and Mom’s Request for Production of Documents and Notice to Produce to Dad. 56. On or about September 24, 2021, Mom’s Counsel received an offer of settlement from Dad’s Counsel. 57. In January 2022, Counsel for the parties discussed the status of settlement negotiations. Specifically, Mom’s Counsel emailed Dad’s Counsel the main points of contention stating, “[W]e are still concerned about the deadlines and dates for the payments of the equity as well as how the debts are to be paid and by whom.” The parties continued their negotiations, but never reached an agreement. 58. On April 25, 2022, the parties appeared for a Motions hearing where Mom’s attorney Clark-Wilson presented an offer of settlement and proposed parenting plan mirroring the parties’ settlement negotiation discussions. She reiterated her request 14 that Attorney Blackmon withdraw his jury trial demand to avoid both parties incurring additional attorney’s fees10. 59. On May 16, 2023, the parties appeared for a Calendar Call and the Court scheduled the matter as back-up for a final jury trial beginning June 12, 2023. 60. On or about May 31, 2023, Dad’s Counsel was served with an offer of settlement and proposed parenting plan in lieu of having a final jury trial. 61. On June 9, 2023, Mom filed her Motion for Continuance of Final Trial in part, to allow her expert, Mr. Jason Roth, time to complete his analysis related to the issue of equitable division of property, and to continue settlement negotiations. 62. On June 20, 2023, Dad, Mr. Blackmon, and Mom’s Counsel attended a pretrial Scheduling Conference, in person. The following deadlines were discussed, and agreed upon by all: a. July 14, 2023: Deadline for all experts to be disclosed;11 b. August 31, 2023: Deadline for all jury verdict forms; c. August 31, 2023: Deadline to conduct expert depositions; d. August 31, 2023: Deadline to supplement all discovery responses and documents; e. August 31, 2023: Deadline to file any motions including motions in limine; f. August 31, 2023: Deadline to submit jury charges to the Court; and g. September 11, 2023, Motions Hearing: This Court would hear any pending motions and issues to the parties’ jury verdict forms and jury charges; 10 Prior to this hearing, Mom’s Counsel emailed Dad’s Counsel to follow up if Dad is “still moving forward with the jury demand or if we can get this set for a bench trial. I do not want to unnecessarily burden the parties financially with a jury trial if this case [can] resolve (which it should).” 11 Mr. Blackmon failed to timely disclose his expert witness, Dr. Mira Iheme, by the Court imposed deadline. 15 63. During the June 2023 pretrial Conference, Dad and Mr. Blackmon attempted to relitigate the issue of Mom’s previous request for interim attorney’s Fees, suggesting she was precluded from asking for them entirely. That was not what the Court Ordered in April 2022, and Mr. Blackmon’s repeated assertion of his position prolonged the hearing extensively. 64. Moreover, Mr. Blackmon failed to submit the Order the Court that she instructed him to prepare after the April 2022, hearing denying Mom’s request for interim attorney’s fees until November 2022 (which was insufficient, and he was instructed to resubmit it). The revised proposed Order was not submitted until June 20, 2023. This also caused additional delay and expense, not to mention the hours the Court had to spend chasing down the order and reviewing all the filings between the hearing and finally receiving of the Order to ensure the revised proposed Order was accurate. D. CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL ORDER, NEW DEFENSE OF CONDONATION, AND NEW GROUND OF CRUEL TREATMENT FOR DIVORCE 65. The Court instructed Ms. Clark-Wilson and Mr. Blackmon to provide a Consolidated Pre-Trial Order incorporating deadlines discussed and agreed upon in open court. 66. On July 10, 2023, at 11:42 a.m., Mr. Blackmon sent a draft of the Consolidated Pre-Trial Order to Mom’s Counsel.12 67. On July 10, 2023, at 12:56 p.m., Mr. Blackmon filed a Notice of Affirmative Defense of Condonation and denied allegations contained within Mom’s Counterclaim for Divorce. 12 A copy of Mr. Blackmon’s correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 16 68. In ¶5 of Dad and Mr. Blackmon’s Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, he states, “[t]he Plaintiff filed his divorce alleging irreconcilable differences and cruel treatment. 69. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to disclose any claims of cruel treatment in any of Dad’s (limited) Discovery Responses or in his Response to Mom’s Notice to Produce. 70. In his portion of the PTO, Dad and Mr. Blackmon first identified an expert witness Dr. Myra Iheme, (a therapist) as someone who may be present at trial and whose testimony may be introduced by deposition.13 However, she was never disclosed as a witness, or potential witness, in any of Dad’s limited Discovery Responses. 71. On July 24, 2023, Mom’s Counsel sent her edits to the proposed PTO to Mr. Blackmon, including the deadlines agreed to and announced during the June 20, 2023, pretrial Conference. Those deadlines were not included in Mr. Blackmon’s proposed PTO.14 72. On July 25, 2023, Mr. Blackmon filed a verified Amended Complaint for Divorce and asserted a NEW ground for divorce, cruel treatment, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-5- 3(10). 73. In his Amended Complaint for Divorce, Dad alleged Mom was “the cause of the demise of this marriage and therefore” Dad requested attorney’s fees as part of his expenses of litigation. 74. On July 27, 2023, Ms. Clark-Wilson sent Mr. Blackmon an e-mail regarding his edits to the PTO and her incorporation of the edits into a Consolidated PTO.15 13 The Court notes that the discovery period was closed, and neither Dad nor Mr. Blackmon ever requested the reopening of discovery. Nor did Dad or Mr. Blackmon ever provide notice to Ms. Clark Wilson of any deposition of Dr. Myra Iheme. 14 For instance, Mr. Blackmon’s version was silent on the deadlines discussed during the previous pretrial Scheduling Conference and was woefully incomplete. 15 E-Mail Correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 17 75. On July 28, 2023, Ms. Clark-Wilson sent Mr. Blackmon an e-mail regarding the third round of edits to the Consolidated PTO. She also advised Mr. Blackmon of her concerns regarding his portion, Dad’s new allegations of cruel treatment, and her concern that Mr. Blackmon was intentionally withholding his approval and cooperation in getting the PTO completed and to the Court. 76. Mr. Blackmon continued to include objection language despite the Court’s Staff Attorney reminding the parties that the language of the Consolidated Pre-Trial Order had to be agreed upon.16 77. On August 1, 2023, Ms. Clark-Wilson made edits to reflect the Court’s requests and resent the edited proposed PTO to Mr. Blackmon.17 78. On August 2, 2023, Ms. Clark-Wilson made additional edits and reminded Mr. Blackmon of the expert disclosure deadline as discussed in open court during the Scheduling Conference.18 79. The Court FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to timely disclose claims, allegations, and expert witnesses, thus causing unnecessary delay, expansion of litigation, and the incurrence of additional attorney’s fees. 80. On August 31, 2023, Mom filed two (2) Motions in Limine in preparation for the jury trial, to wit, Motion to Exclude Evidence Not Disclosed and a Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence [of Cruel Treatment and Condonation]. 81. On August 31, 2023, Mom’s Counsel also filed a Certificate of Compliance in 16 Mr. Blackmon’s edits to the Consolidated Pre-trial Order included language, in multiple sections and started with “The Dad objects…” Correspondence and the Draft #3 of the Consolidated Pre-Trial Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 17 A copy of Draft #4 of the Consolidated Pre-Trial Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” 18 A copy of Draft #5 of the Consolidated Pre-Trial Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “E. 18 serving Dad and Mr. Blackmon with Mom’s Proposed Jury Charges. 82. On August 31, 2023, Mom’s Counsel also filed her Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-6-2, O.C.G.A. §19-9-3, O.C.G.A. §13-6-11, O.C.G.A. §9-15- 14(a) and O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b).19 83. On September 8, 2023, Mom’s Counsel filed an Amended Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-6-2, O.C.G.A. §19-9-3, O.C.G.A. §13-6-11, O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a) and O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b)to include a request for attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37.20 84. On September 16, 2023, Mr. Blackmon filed his Response to Mom’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37, O.C.G.A. §19-6-2, O.C.G.A. §19-9-3, O.C.G.A. §13-6-11, O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a) and O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b) by stating, “[t]he Plaintiff oppose [sic] each and every paragraph of Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fes as all of the grounds are without merit and contrary to laws [sic].” 85. The Court FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon expanded the litigation by failing to provide a meaningful response to Mom’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Mr. Blackmon also failed to place Mom on proper notice of his assertions and unnecessarily expanded this litigation. 86. The Court further FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon did this to intentionally delay the proceedings and to prevent Mom from having adequate time to defend her Motion for Attorney’s Fees. The Court FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon unnecessarily expanded the litigation by asserting new claims and defenses less than one month before a jury trial. 87. On September 11, 2023, pursuant to the PTO, the parties, Mr. Blackmon, and 19 Mom specifically sought fees against “Dad and/or [Mr. Blackmon].” 20 Mom specifically sought fees against “Dad and/or [Mr. Blackmon].” 19 Mom’s Counsel appeared for a Motions Hearing on Mom’s Motion(s) in Limine and all outstanding motions and issues in preparation for the upcoming jury trial. 88. The Court heard the following Motions and hereby incorporates her rulings from the September 11, 2023, hearing herein by reference:21 a. Mom’s July 22, 2021, Second Motion for Contempt and Motion for (interim) Attorney’s Fees. This was heard April 25, 2022. The Motion for contempt regarding Dad’s Drug Screens was GRANTED. The Motion for (interim) Attorney’s Fees was DENIED. However, the Court explained that Mom was not precluded from seeking fees at the conclusion of the case. 22 b. Mom’s July 12, 2023, Third Motion for Contempt and for Attorney’s Fees (for non-payment of previously ordered fees and failure to produce results from drug screen). The Motion for Contempt was GRANTED with respect to Dad’s failure to pay attorney’s fees from the Court’s September 22, 2021, Order. However, the Motion for Contempt for failing to produce the drug test results was DENIED. The Motion for Attorney’s Fees was reserved. c. Mom’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Dad’s Appraiser was DENIED; d. Mom’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Dad’s Therapist Witness was 21 The Order on September 11, 2023, Motions Hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit “F.” 22 After the April 25, 2022, hearing on this issue, the Court instructed Mr. Blackmon to submit a proposed Order with findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, Mr. Blackmon submitted an incomplete order in November 2022, and was told to revise and resubmit. He didn’t do so until June 2023. After submitting the revised proposed Order in June 2023, Mr. Blackmon continued to argue the issue of attorney’s fees and misrepresented the Court’s previous ruling (that Mom could seek attorney’s fees at the conclusion of the case). Further, the Court FINDS Mr. Blackmon was ill-prepared during this motions hearing and became combative with the Court and opposing counsel. While Mr. Blackmon stated he provided the revised Order to the Court prior to June 2023, he failed to provide any emails or other evidence that he submitted anything before June. To date, the Court has never received the evidence Mr. Blackmon said he had purportedly proving he sent the Court the revised proposed Order prior to June 2023. 20 GRANTED; e. Mom’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Not Produced or Supplemented in Discovery was GRANTED; f. Mom’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Condonation and Cruel Treatment was DENIED.23 89. During the September 11, 2023, Motions hearing, neither Dad nor Mr. Blackmon supplemented Dad’s Responses to Discovery. 90. On September 16, 2023, Mr. Blackmon filed a Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a)(b) and O.C.G.A. §19-6-2. 91. On September 22, 2023, Mom’s Counsel filed her Defenses and Response to Dad’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a)(b) and O.C.G.A. §19-6-2. 92. On September 24, 2023, Mr. Blackmon served Dad’s Objection to Subpoenas and Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoenas to the following entities: Grady Memorial Hospital, Foundations Recovery Network, LLC, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Synovus Bank and/or First Progress, Commonwealth of Atlanta, LLC, Navy Federal Credit Union, JAE Financial Group & Associates, LLC, Uber, Robinhood Markets, Inc., Self-Credit LLC, Centaurus Financial, Inc., Jackson Enterprise Specialist, LLC, Progressive American Insurance, American Express, The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Fidelity Distribution Company, LLC, The Penn Mutual Life 23 However, the Court FINDS that Dad and Mr. Blackmon intentionally failed to timely disclose Dad’s condonation defense and cruel treatment claim. Therefore, the Court permitted Mom’s Counsel to depose Dad regarding the limited issues of adultery, cruel treatment, and condonation. The Court also FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon attempted to ambush Mom and her Counsel with new allegations and accordingly expanded this litigation. As a result, the Court ordered Dad to pay costs of his second deposition. 21 Insurance Company, Jackson Financial Group, LLC, E-Trade Financial Corporate Service, INVESCO, Lyft, Apex Clearing Corporation, Discover, Lincoln Heritage Life Insurance, Houseman Investments, LLC, Houseman Investments, LLC, Biotic Enterprises, LLC, Stewart Miller Simmons Trial Attorneys, The Law Office of Robert Daniel, LLC, National Life Insurance Company, The Dudley Mac Group, LLC, JD Law Group, LLC, Rev. John Brown, and Lucas Financial Services, Inc. 93. However, Mr. Blackmon failed to comply with U.S.C.R. 6.4(b) by failing to confer with Ms. Clark-Wilson prior to filing the Motion to Quash. 94. The Court finds that Mom’s subpoenas to the non-parties were necessary due to Dad’s failure to provide complete discovery responses and responsive documents pursuant to Mom’s Requests. 95. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to provide complete responsive documents pursuant to Mom’s service of her Notice to Produce Documents on more than five (5) occasions, hence necessitating Mom’s Counsel to subpoena documents from non-party entities. 96. The Court specially set this matter for a jury trial September 26-28, 2023. Shortly before the Jury Trial was to begin, Mr. Blackmon contacted Mom’s witness, Ms. Jasmine Baisten, for the purposes of discouraging her from appearing pursuant to Mom’s subpoena, causing an expansion of litigation. Such actions are inappropriate, unethical and in bad faith. 97. On September 26, 2023, the parties, Mr. Blackmon and Mom’s Counsel appeared for day one of the specially set jury trial. The Court DENIED Mr. Blackmon’s Objection to Mom’s Subpoenas and Denied his Motion to Quash. 22 98. On September 26, 2023, the parties, Mr. Blackmon and Mom’s Counsel participated in lengthy pre-trial conferences for the purposes of facilitating settlement. During these conferences, the parties agreed on all issues related to the divorce case, including but not limited to alimony, child custody, child support, division of property and assets, and division of debts. 99. The parties additionally agreed to reserve all issues related to attorney’s fees for a later date. That language was specifically incorporated into the Final Judgment and Decree. 100. Despite the parties agreeing to reserve all issues related to attorney’s fees language included in the Final Judgment and Decree, Dad and Mr. Blackmon continued to expand the litigation by being ill-prepared and ignoring the language contained in the Final Consent Judgment and Decree.24 101. On January 30, 2024, the parties, Mr. Blackmon and Mom’s Counsel appeared for the motions hearing for attorney’s fees. 102. During this hearing, Mr. Blackmon was woefully unprepared, made incoherent arguments and objections, refused to take direction from the Court, and significantly and unnecessarily expanded the litigation. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Mom properly filed and served her Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-9-3(g), O.C.G.A. §19-6-2, O.C.G.A. §9-14-15(a), O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b), O.C.G.A. §13-6-11 and O.C.G.A. §9-11-37. The Court hereby GRANTS Mom’s Motion(s) for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37, O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a), 24 Dad and Mr. Blackmon also requested attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation while arguing to the Court that Mom was barred from seeking further attorney’s fees. 23 and O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b) and awards Mom $27,411.36 in attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37, $8,172.92 in attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a), $50,899.80 in attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(b) and $1,809.99 in attorney’s fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §19-6-2. A. Mom’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-37(a)(4) O.C.G.A. §9-11-37 states, in relevant part, If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Throughout the lengthy and protracted litigation in this case, Dad has completely and unequivocally disregarded his discovery obligations and refused to cooperate in obtaining and responding to Mom’s Discovery Requests as well as Notice(s) to Produce. The Court FINDS Dad’s extensive history of failing to comply with his discovery obligations resulted in multiple Orders to compel (and a prior award of attorney’s fees), that continued long after Mr. Blackmon’s entry as his attorney. Both Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to provide necessary documents and responses related to child support, various financial accounts, debts, and credit cards. Further, Dad’s DRFA revealed additional bank accounts, debts and credit cards that were never identified or provided during discovery. As such, Mom was forced to serve multiple subpoenas to Dad’s employer and various financial institutions to obtain the 24 necessary documents Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to provide. This caused Mom to incur additional attorney’s fees and expenses. Dad and Mr. Blackmon continued to “hide the ball,” forcing Mom to jump through unnecessary hoops to obtain the needed documents to adequately prepare for the Final Trial. Moreover, this necessitated the filing of Mom’s Motion in Limine(s) to prevent the undisclosed discovery and documents from being admitted into evidence at the trial. The Court granted Mom’s Motion. The Court also re-opened discovery so Mom could gather the information to support Dad’s recently added claims for condonation and cruel treatment. Upon review and consideration of the argument and evidence as to Mom’s attorney’s fees and expenses incurred as a direct result of Dad’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations, which resulted in a delay of the case and unnecessarily expanded the scope of the litigation, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Dad and Mr. Blackmon are to be held jointly and severally liable, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11- 37(4)(a), for $27,411.36 in attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation based on the following conduct: 1. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to respond completely to Mom’s Discovery Requests and added cruel treatment and condonation. The Dad filed his Petition for Divorce on March 7, 2019, but did not allege specific grounds for divorce. It was not until July 10, 2023, more than four years after the Petition was filed, that Dad and Mr. Blackmon first raised the affirmative defense of condonation to Mom’s claims of adultery. Then, on July 25, 2023, Dad amended his Complaint to include a new ground for divorce, cruel treatment. The Court FINDS Dad and Mr. Blackmon intentionally expanded litigation by asserting new claims and 25 defenses more than four (4) years into the litigation. Had Dad and Mr. Blackmon simply responded and supplemented discovery pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-26(e), Mom and her Counsel could have learned of these allegations during the discovery phase of the case and had time to investigate them. Instead, Dad and Mr. Blackmon waited until 36 days before the final jury trial to do so. Dad and Mr. Blackmon’s conduct amounted to trial by ambush, which the Court will neither tolerate nor reward. 2. Dad and Mr. Blackmon’s conduct thwarted Mom’s ability to properly conduct discovery and depositions for the purposes of trial. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to produce documents Dad was required to provide prior to his depositions. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to comply with Notice(s) to Produce and Mom’s multiple requests for supplementation of discovery. The Court expressed concern at each hearing that the parties, specifically Dad, needed to produce ALL the documents and responses to the Discovery Requests and Requests for Supplementation. However, Dad and Mr. Blackmon only produced eight (8) pieces of paper, none of which included supplemented financial statements from any of Dad’s financial accounts.25 3. Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to comply with the Uniform Superior Court Rules prior to filing Motions to Quash. U.S.C.R. 6.4(b) states, prior to filing a motion to quash, “counsel for the moving party shall confer with counsel for the opposing party and any objecting person or entity in a good faith effort to resolve the matters involved. At the time of filing the motion, counsel shall also file a statement certifying that such conference has occurred and that 25 During the September 11, 2023, Hearing, the Court was provided with an exhibit outlining all of the documents Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to provide from various financial institutions. The Court hereby attaches, and incorporates by reference, this exhibit as Exhibit “G.” 26 the effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised failed.” Dad and Mr. Blackmon failed to confer with Mom’s Counsel in attempt to resolve the dispute regarding the subpoenaed documents, and failed to file a statement certifying that he, in fact, attempted to resolve the issues prior to filing his motion. The Court denied Dad and Mr. Blackmon’s Motions to Quash and FINDS this to be another attempt to thwart Mom’s ability to obtain information and documents that were germane to this case. B. Mom’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-15-14(a) O.C.G.A. §9-14-15(a) states, “In any civil action in any court of record of this state, reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and expenses of litigation shall be awarded to any party against whom another party has asserted a claim, defense, or other position with respect to which there existed such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that it could not be reas