In re Dillon

Citations: 808 S.E.2d 436; 344 Ga. App. 200Docket: A17A1723

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; December 11, 2017; Georgia; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Attorney Trace Dillon was found in criminal contempt of court after he repeatedly filed nearly identical petitions for scire facias under an incorrect case number, despite being previously warned by the trial court. Dillon's appeals argue that the evidence was inadequate to support the contempt finding. The appellate court affirms the trial court's ruling, emphasizing that evidence is viewed favorably towards the trial court's decision.

Dillon, who operates a commercial debt collection practice, had previously obtained a judgment in 2007 in Case No. 06VS103736. After the judgment became dormant, he attempted to revive it by filing a complaint designated as Case No. 14VS003116, which he later dismissed without prejudice in 2015. He filed the first petition for scire facias in Case No. 14VS003116 on September 21, 2015, but it was denied because he had dismissed that case. Despite this, Dillon filed a second petition under the same number on June 10, 2016, which was also denied for the same reason. 

On September 9, 2016, Dillon filed a third petition under Case No. 14VS003116, which was again denied, with the trial court warning that any further identical petitions would be reported to the State Bar of Georgia. Following this, Dillon discovered that his software was automatically inputting the incorrect case number. He deleted Case No. 14VS003116 from his system and attempted to file a fourth petition without a case number. However, he failed to confirm the proper filing procedures with his staff or the Clerk of Court, leading to further procedural errors.

The paralegal e-filed the fourth petition in the State Court of Fulton County under the case number 14VS003116. Following this filing, the trial court ordered Dillon to appear and explain why he should not be held in contempt. The court found that Dillon had voluntarily signed the petitions without verifying the correct case number and, despite prior warnings, allowed another incorrect petition to be filed. Dillon admitted to not doing "everything that [he] could have" to prevent these errors, attributing the issue to his software and staff actions. However, the trial court determined that Dillon was aware of the improper filings and failed to take adequate corrective measures, emphasizing that it was his responsibility, as an attorney, to ensure compliance with court orders. Consequently, the court ruled his actions were willful and held him in contempt. On appeal, Dillon argued that the evidence was insufficient for a contempt finding, but the court disagreed, stating that criminal contempt involves willful disregard of court orders. The court highlighted that attorneys, as officers of the court, have a higher duty to uphold court protocols. The situation was compared to a previous case where an attorney's negligence led to a contempt ruling, reinforcing the notion that Dillon's actions constituted a breach of his professional responsibilities.

Dillon was warned by the trial court that filing a fourth identical petition would lead to negative consequences. Although he attempted to address the issue, he ultimately did not ensure the correct case number was used for his fourth petition. The trial court observed that Dillon failed to take adequate steps to comply with its orders, which hindered the court's ability to administer justice. Consequently, it was determined that a rational fact-finder could conclude Dillon willfully ignored the trial court's prior admonition. The judgment against Dillon was affirmed. The opinion notes that Judge Susan E. Edlein of the State Court of Fulton County was improperly represented in this appeal by the Office of the County Attorney, as judges involved in contempt cases are not parties to appellate reviews. However, since the appellant did not object to this representation, such an objection would have been upheld had it been raised. Furthermore, the filing of a petition for writ of scire facias to revive a judgment is viewed as a continuation of the original action, not a new one, per OCGA § 9-12-62.