IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF GEORGIA MARQUITTA L. PORTMAN, * Appellant, * -VS- * CASE NO S99A0440 S. LARK INGRAM, * Appellee. *
Appellee S. Lark Ingram moves the Court pursuant to this Court’s Rule 8 for an order penalizing the Appellant for pursuing this frivolous appeal. This mandamus action was begun because the Appellant, who had won her case before Judge S. Lark Ingram, wanted Judge Ingram to prepare the order instead of preparing it herself as the judge had ordered. On mandamus, the parties agreed to have the mandamus judge, Judge James G. Bodiford prepare the order and Judge Ingram signed it. (T. 5-11; Appellants Brief, Exhibit 1) At that point, the Appellant had everything she had asked for. She had an order in her favor and she did not have to prepare it.
Notwithstanding her success, Appellant has pursued the instant appeal making additional frivolous arguments. For instance she argues that that she was entitled to a jury trial in the mandamus proceeding on the fact issue of whether Judge Ingram had recused herself from the underlying case. (Appellant’s Enumeration of Error 1)
These are plainly frivolous arguments. Appellant has multiplied the litigation involving her divorce of more than 3 years ago, when it gains her nothing but more time speaking in the courtroom or more papers to file in the courthouse. This is a plain example of the kind of frivolous litigation that clogs the court calendar so that cases with merit have long delays in being decided.
Appellant was told by Judge Bodiford below that her case was frivolous (T 48) and she was unable to tell Judge Bodiford what she wanted from the litigation without taking “all afternoon.” The hearing had already gone on all morning at that point and Judge Bodiford had explained to her at length that she had won and didn’t need to appeal an order that she had won. He explained that the issue she had identified as a jury issue just wasn’t an issue any more because all the parties agreed that Judge Ingram had not recused herself from the underlying divorce case at that point in time. (T 31-39)
Appellant has wasted the judicial resources of this State in the mandamus action against Judge Ingram and in this appeal. This Court has the authority to penalize the Appellant as a measure to see that she doesn’t pursue frivolous appeals in the future. Appellee Ingram asks that the Court penalize the Appellant in the amount of $1,000 as authorized by Rule 8.
Respectfully submitted,
THURBERT E. BAKER
Attorney General
(signature line blank)
DENNIS R. DUNN 234098
Deputy Attorney General
(signature by Kathryn L. Allen)
KATHRYN L. ALLEN 011050
Senior Assistant Attorney General
(Record includes Certificate of Service, February 25, 1999)