Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Foster v. Gidewon
Citations: 280 Ga. 21; 622 S.E.2d 357; 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 3500; 2005 Ga. LEXIS 812Docket: S05A1452
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia; November 21, 2005; Georgia; State Supreme Court
Jennie Foster and Gebriel Gidewon, former cohabitants, became involved in a legal dispute after Gidewon filed a petition for a temporary protective order against Foster, alleging misdemeanor stalking. A hearing was scheduled for June 29, 2004, after Foster was served on June 21, 2004. Foster obtained legal representation on June 24, 2004, and her attorney filed a conflict letter indicating a scheduling conflict with another court appearance. On the day of the hearing, the attorney informed the Fulton Superior Court judge of his conflict but failed to attend the hearing. Foster, unprepared without her attorney, notified the court of this absence, but the trial court deemed the conflict letter as untimely and proceeded with the hearing, ultimately issuing a mutual protective order. Foster's subsequent motions to set aside the order and for a new trial were denied, and her application for discretionary appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to assess whether the trial court erred in its ruling regarding the conflict letter's timeliness. The court analyzed Uniform Superior Court Rule (USCR) 17.1(B), which requires attorneys facing scheduling conflicts to provide prompt written notice at least seven days in advance. The court concluded that Foster’s attorney complied with the rule by notifying the court immediately upon being retained and maintaining communication about his conflict. The ruling highlighted that there was no evidence of prejudice to Gidewon’s rights due to the absence of a short delay and that the trial court's decision to ignore the conflict letter constituted an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and further consideration of Foster’s remaining claims was deemed unnecessary. All Justices concurred in this decision.