Litigation

If a spouse is represented by an attorney, the attorney's final statements are binding, even if the statements are at odds with the client's wishes. Sweat v. Sweat, S06F2079, Supreme Court of Georgia, Jan. 22, 2007.

After a jury trial, the wife was awarded 43% of the husband's retirement account. The jury did not direct how the division should be accomplished for optimum tax benefit to each party. Although the parties discussed the use of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to mitigate the tax consequences of the transfer, the trial court did not provide for a QDRO in the decree. The husband appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to provide for a QDRO in the divorce decree, even though the husband wanted to have a QDRO included in the decree. The appellate court affirmed. It held that although there was some discussion in the record regarding a QDRO, the record indicated that the wife's attorney suggested that the parties leave the verdict as it was and not stipulate as to the form of payment. The husband's attorney did not object. Even though the husband argued that he wanted the QDRO in the final decree, the husband was bound by the statements of his attorney.