Davis v. Davis
713 S.E.2d 694, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2222, 310 Ga. App. 512 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The equitable doctrine of laches bars a claim when a party, with full knowledge of their rights, is guilty of unreasonable delay in asserting them, and this delay causes prejudice to the opposing party.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Davis were divorced in Louisiana, a community property state, in 1996.
- The final judgment of divorce did not mention or divide any community property, specifically Mr. Davis's military pension.
- Mrs. Davis was served with the divorce papers, acknowledged the decree did not include the property division she wanted, but filed no answer or objection.
- Mrs. Davis alleged a verbal agreement existed for Mr. Davis to pay her $550 per month from his pension upon his retirement.
- Mr. Davis retired in February 2003; Mrs. Davis expected payments to begin at this time.
- From January 2004 to March 2006, Mr. Davis made monthly payments of $400, which he claimed were for their son's college education, not a property settlement.
- All payments from Mr. Davis stopped in March 2006.
- Mrs. Davis filed this action seeking a share of the pension in February 2008.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2008, Mrs. Davis (petitioner) filed an action in equity against Mr. Davis (respondent) in a Georgia trial court, seeking a constructive trust on his military pension.
- Mrs. Davis later amended her petition to an action seeking to domesticate the 1996 Louisiana divorce judgment.
- Mr. Davis asserted the affirmative defense of laches and filed a motion to dismiss.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and, sitting as a chancellor in equity, granted the motion to dismiss, finding the claim was barred by laches.
- Mrs. Davis (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Georgia, believing it fell within that court's equity jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia determined the equitable claim was ancillary to a legal issue and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeals for a decision on the merits.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of laches bar a former spouse's equitable claim to an interest in community property when she waits twelve years after the divorce decree, which omitted the property, and two years after alleged payments ceased, to file a lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, Presiding Judge
Yes. A claim is barred by the doctrine of laches where the claimant fails to exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing their rights. Here, Mrs. Davis failed to exercise such diligence by waiting twelve years after the divorce decree was entered, and two years after the disputed payments completely stopped, before bringing her action. She acknowledged in 1996 that the divorce decree omitted the alleged pension agreement but took no action to remedy it. She then waited five years after the pension payments were supposed to begin, and two years after the sporadic payments she did receive had ceased, to finally file suit. Her excuse, that she trusted Mr. Davis to 'do the right thing,' is insufficient to justify such a prolonged delay. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that her claim was barred by laches.
Analysis:
This case serves as a strong reminder that equitable remedies are not available indefinitely and that courts demand diligence from those seeking relief. It demonstrates that a party's knowledge of a potential claim triggers a duty to act promptly, and a lengthy, unexcused delay can be fatal to the claim. The decision reinforces that courts are highly deferential to a trial court's discretion in applying the fact-intensive doctrine of laches. Furthermore, it highlights a critical procedural point: in the absence of properly pleading and proving foreign law, the law of the forum state (in this case, Georgia) will govern the dispute.
