Willie Turner v. Toni Reynolds

── Willie Turner v. Toni Reynolds ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General SECOND DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., DAVIS, J., and SENIOR JUDGE FULLER NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules May 12, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0210. TURNER v. REYNOLDS. FULLER, Senior Judge. In this domestic relations case, Willie Turner appeals from the trial court’s ruling denying his motion to set aside an order finding him in contempt, arguing that he did not receive proper notice of the contempt hearing. As set forth below, we agree and reverse. “A trial court’s decision regarding a motion to set aside a judgment will not be reversed absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion.” Williams v. Contemporary Servs. Corp., 325 Ga. App. 299, 300 (750 SE2d 460) (2013) (quotation marks omitted). A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling “is unsupported by any evidence of record” or “misstates or misapplies the relevant law.” Eagle Jets, LLC v. Atlanta Jet, Inc., 347 Ga. App. 567, 576(2)(c) (820 SE2d 197) (2018) (quotation marks omitted). Turner and his ex-wife, Toni Reynolds, divorced in 2019. In 2024, Reynolds filed in DeKalb County Superior Court a pro se petition for contempt, alleging that Turner owed her back child support, had failed to provide their minor child with medical insurance or pay for the child’s orthodontia, and owed her additional sums under the divorce decree. Turner filed a pro se response to the petition, disputing the amounts owed and asserting an inability to comply with the divorce decree. The response included Turner’s physical mailing address and phone number, but not his email address. The matter was then set for a video hearing. The original order noticing the hearing was served on Turner electronically and by regular mail, but the subsequent rule nisi resetting the hearing for February 5, 2025, was not served by mail. After Turner failed to appear at the February hearing, the trial court found him in contempt and ordered him incarcerated until he made a purge payment of $5,000. Turner filed a motion to set aside the contempt order pursuant to OCGA § 9-11- 60(d)(3) on the basis that he had not been properly notified of the hearing because he never agreed to be electronically served with notices in the case under OCGA § 9-11- 2 5(f). The trial court denied Turner’s motion,1 and he filed a counseled application for discretionary review, which this Court granted. This appeal follows. Turner contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside because he was not served with notice of the contempt hearing in the manner prescribed by statute. We agree. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60(d)(3), a judgment may be set aside based on a “nonamendable defect which appears upon the face of the record or pleadings.” One such defect is the failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirement of OCGA § 9-11-6(d). See, e.g., Randall v. Randall, 274 Ga. 107, 109(2) (549 SE2d 384) (2001); Fiffee v. Jiggetts, 353 Ga. App. 730, 735(2) (839 SE2d 224) (2020). Notice is fundamental to any legal proceeding. See Randall, 274 Ga. at 109(2) (“A fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice that is reasonably calculated to inform interested parties of an impending hearing and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” (quotation marks omitted)). Under OCGA § 9-11-6(d), as a general rule, notice of a hearing “shall be served not later than five days before the time specified for the 1 Although the trial court denied Turner’s motion to