(punctuation omitted)).Moore v. Hullander, 345 Ga. App. 568, 572 (2) (c), 814 S.E.2d 423 (2018) (emphasis supplied).Connolly v. Smock, 338 Ga. App. 754, 757 (1), 791 S.E.2d 853 (2016) (punctuation omitted) (emphasis supplied); accord Riddell v. Riddell, 293 Ga. 249, 250, 744 S.E.2d 793 (2013); Moon v. Moon, 277 Ga. 375, 379 (6), 589 S.E.2d 76 (2003); Joe & James Props., LLC v. City of Atlanta, 368 Ga. App. 302, 308 (3), 890 S.E.2d 21 (2023), cert. denied (Dec. 19, 2023).
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Moore v. Hullander , 345 Ga. App. 568, 570 (2), 814 S.E.2d 423 (2018). But when there is more than one statutory basis for the fee award, and a review of the record does not reveal the basis for the award, we remand the case to the trial court to clarify the statutory basis of the award and to enter any necessary findings that support it.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Moore v. Hullander , 345 Ga. App. 568, 570 (2), 814 S.E.2d 423 (2018). However,
In other words, "lump sum" or "unapportioned" fee awards are not allowed. Moore v. Hullander , 345 Ga. App. 568, 573 (2) (c), 814 S.E.2d 423 (2018) (punctuation omitted). And to allow appellate review to, among other things, distinguish lump sum awards from proper ones, the fee order must explain "the complex decision making process necessarily involved in reaching a particular dollar figure."
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Moore v. Hullander , 345 Ga. App. 568, 574 (2) (d), 814 S.E.2d 423 (2018). However, in this case,
As such, this statutory provision does not apply. Viskup v. Viskup , 291 Ga. 103, 107 (3), 727 S.E.2d 97 (2012) ; Wilson , 353 Ga. App. at 503 (1), 838 S.E.2d 588 ; Moore v. Hullander , 345 Ga. App. 568, 571 (2) (a), 814 S.E.2d 423 (2018) ( OCGA § 19-6-2 does not apply to counterclaim for child support and contempt where original petition requested modification of custody). Thus, to the extent that the trial court awarded fees under OCGA § 19-6-2, the award cannot stand.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Moore v. Hullander, 345 Ga. App. 568, 573 (2) (c), 814 S.E.2d 423 (2018). While the trial court awarded an "amount representing] the majority of the fees requested by [IACA] incurred in defending this action Since May 5, [2021]," the court’s order only specifically finds that "Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint," "Fourth Amendment Complaint," and "Second Motion to Strike" are instances of sanctionable conduct warranting an award of fees.
Because OCGA § 9-11-37 (b) (2) does not support the award, we must vacate it. The award cannot be "independently sustained under an alternative statutory provision that was asserted as a basis for an award of fees in the court below[,]" Moore v. Hullander , 345 Ga. App. 568, 574 (2) (d), 814 S.E.2d 423 (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted), because an award under that alternative provision, OCGA § 9-11-37 (a) (4), addresses expenses related to a motion to compel discovery, not sanctions for noncompliance with a discovery order. Instead, the trial court must reconsider the award on remand.
Although one might argue that such an action nevertheless "ar[ose] out of" the Claybrookses’ divorce case, our precedent squarely forecloses awarding attorney fees in these circumstances: OCGA § 19-6-2 "does not apply to a petition for modification of child custody or to contempt proceedings unless the allegations are for failure to comply with the original alimony or divorce decree." Moore v. Hullander , 345 Ga. App. 568, 571 (2) (a), 814 S.E.2d 423 (2018) (citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original); see also Hall v. Hall , 335 Ga. App. 208, 211-12 (2), 780 S.E.2d 787 (2015) ( OCGA § 19-6-2 not available for attorney fees in action for modification of child support); Cothran v. Mehosky , 286 Ga. App. 640, 641, 649 S.E.2d 838 (2007) ("[w]here the action seeks solely to modify the alimony or divorce decree ... such as an action for modification of child support ... and does not contain any contempt allegations for failure to comply with the original alimony or divorce decree, it falls outside the parameters of OCGA § 19-6-2"). (c) In short, neither OCGA § 19-6-28 nor OCGA § 19-6-2 authorized the attorney fee award here, so we must vacate the award.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Moore v. Hullander, 345 Ga.App. 568, 570 (2) (814 S.E.2d 423) (2018). However,