From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hughes v. Hughes

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 28, 1989
193 Ga. App. 72 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)

Summary

In Hughes v. Hughes, 193 Ga. App. 72 (387 S.E.2d 29) (1989), the non-resident plaintiff filed an action in Tattnall Superior Court for an equitable partitioning of certain real estate. The defendant asserted an independent and separate counterclaim that the plaintiff was wrongfully withholding certain personal property belonging to defendant, which counterclaim sought the return of the personal property or damages for conversion. The parties consented to the sale of the real estate to be partitioned, and the proceeds were distributed. The trial court then dismissed the counterclaim for want of jurisdiction, and the defendant appealed.

Summary of this case from Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Hopson

Opinion

A89A1662.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1989.

Partitioning action. Tattnall Superior Court. Before Judge Findley.

B. Daniel Dubberly III, for appellant.

Glen A. Cheney, Michael L. Chidester, for appellee.


This case originated as an action by the appellee for an equitable partitioning of certain real estate. The appellant filed a counterclaim alleging that the appellee was wrongfully withholding certain personal property belonging to him and seeking either the return of that property or damages for its alleged conversion. The real estate which was the subject of the appellee's partitioning claim was sold pursuant to a consent order, and the proceeds were distributed to the parties. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the appellant's counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that, because the appellee had previously been directed by a Florida court to turn over the property in question to the appellant, and because that order (which had been entered in a contempt proceeding stemming from the parties' divorce) had not been domesticated in this state, the conversion claim constituted an impermissible attempt by the appellant to enforce an undomesticated foreign judgment. This appeal followed. Held:

The superior courts of this state clearly have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain conversion actions. See generally Art. VI, Sec. IV, Par. I, Ga. Const. of 1983. Assuming arguendo that the Florida contempt order could be directly enforced in this state pursuant to domestication proceedings instituted in accordance with OCGA § 9-12-130 et seq., it does not follow that the appellant was required to undertake such domestication proceedings as a condition precedent to bringing a conversion action in this state based on his alleged ownership of the property. Cf. Dunlap v. Pope, 177 Ga. App. 539 ( 339 S.E.2d 662) (1986) (holding that the state courts are not divested of jurisdiction "over trover or conversion actions in which the alleged trover or conversion results from the defendant's retention of property awarded to the plaintiff in a final divorce decree.").

The appellee's reliance on Starling v. Starling, 214 Ga. 786, 788 (1) ( 107 S.E.2d 651) (1959), for the proposition that the respondent in a partitioning proceeding cannot counterclaim to recover a personal judgment on a separate and independent matter is misplaced, inasmuch as that case was based on the law as it existed prior to the Civil Practice Act. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the CPA, OCGA § 9-11-18, "[a] party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal or equitable, as he has against an opposing party." See generally Continental Ins. Co. v. Mercer, 130 Ga. App. 339 (1) ( 203 S.E.2d 297) (1973).

We reject the appellee's theory that her petition for an equitable partitioning was an in rem proceeding which did not subject her to the personal jurisdiction of the trial court. The appellee's original action was both styled and pursued as an action to obtain relief against the appellant personally, and she will not now be heard to complain that she is inconvenienced by having to defend against the appellant's counterclaim in his county of residence rather than in the state and county of her residence. See generally Henderson v. Kent, 158 Ga. App. 206 (1) ( 279 S.E.2d 503) (1981).

Judgment reversed. Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1989.


Summaries of

Hughes v. Hughes

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 28, 1989
193 Ga. App. 72 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)

In Hughes v. Hughes, 193 Ga. App. 72 (387 S.E.2d 29) (1989), the non-resident plaintiff filed an action in Tattnall Superior Court for an equitable partitioning of certain real estate. The defendant asserted an independent and separate counterclaim that the plaintiff was wrongfully withholding certain personal property belonging to defendant, which counterclaim sought the return of the personal property or damages for conversion. The parties consented to the sale of the real estate to be partitioned, and the proceeds were distributed. The trial court then dismissed the counterclaim for want of jurisdiction, and the defendant appealed.

Summary of this case from Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Hopson
Case details for

Hughes v. Hughes

Case Details

Full title:HUGHES v. HUGHES

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 28, 1989

Citations

193 Ga. App. 72 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)
387 S.E.2d 29

Citing Cases

Rewis v. Shaw

BEASLEY, Presiding Judge. This is a continuation of Shaw v. Hughes, 199 Ga. App. 212 ( 404 S.E.2d 309)…

O'Connor v. Bielski

This result was supported by evidence that the parties had invested roughly equal amounts of their separately…