BISHOP v. GOINS (Two Cases)

FINAL COPY




                    S18G0695. BISHOP v. GOINS et al.
                 S18G0696. BISHOP et al. v. POWELL et al.

      BENHAM, Justice.

      In Bishop v. Goins, 

 (

) (2017), the Court

of Appeals held that OCGA § 16-5-94 (d) (3) authorizes a trial court to award

a party costs and attorney fees incurred during appellate proceedings following

the entry of a stalking-related protective order. We granted certiorari to consider

the issue, and, following an examination of the plain language of the statute, we

conclude that OCGA § 16-5-94 (d) (3) does not permit such an award in this

case. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

      As the parties acknowledged at oral argument, neither the facts nor the

procedural posture of this case are in question. After the Superior Court of

Jasper County issued protective orders against Steve and Jodi Bishop in favor

of their neighbors, Bernie and Michael Goins and Jana and Keith Powell (“the

Neighbors”), the Bishops appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders
in unpublished decisions.1 The Neighbors then moved the trial court for costs

and attorney fees incurred as a result of the appellate proceedings, asserting that

such an award was permissible under OCGA § 16-5-94 (d) (3). The trial court

granted the motions, over the Bishops’ objections, awarding the Goinses

$4,907.06 in attorney fees against Steve Bishop and awarding the Powells

$4,873.90 against both Jodi and Steve Bishop.2

      The Bishops sought relief in the Court of Appeals, continuing their

argument that OCGA § 16-5-94 (d) (3) does not authorize an award of costs and

attorney fees in connection with appellate proceedings.3 See 

 The

Court of Appeals — which apparently reviewed the legal question under an

abuse-of-discretion standard — concluded that the fee award was authorized

because “nothing in the fee provision [in OCGA § 16-5-94 (d) (3)] expressly

limits recovery of attorney fees to those incurred in trial court litigation.”


      1
      Bishop v. Goins, 338 Ga. App. XXIV (Case Nos. A16A0895,
A16A0896) (Sept. 8, 2016) (unpublished); Bishop v. Powell, 338 Ga. App.
XXIV (Case No. A16A0897) (Sept. 8, 2016) (unpublished).
      2
          There were no awards of costs and attorney fees in the original orders.
      3
       As the Court of Appeals noted, the Bishops’ sole challenge on appeal was
whether the award was authorized by statute, not whether the award was reasonable.
See Bishop v. Goins, 344 Ga. App. at 179, n. 10.

                                           2
Bishop, 344 Ga. App. at 176-179. We subsequently granted certiorari to review

the Court of Appeals’ decision, and we agree with the Bishops that the fee

award here was not authorized by statute.

      As we now consider the text of the relevant statutory provision, we are

mindful that we must

      presume that the General Assembly meant what it said and said
      what it meant. To that end, we must afford the statutory text its
      “plain and ordinary meaning,” we must view the statutory text in
      the context in which it appears, and we must read the statutory text
      in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary speaker of the
      English language would.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Deal v. Coleman, 

(

) (2013). Where the statutory text is “clear and unambiguous,”

we attribute to the statute its plain meaning, and our search for statutory

meaning ends. See 

. The issue before us is purely legal and, as such,

is reviewed de novo. See Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 

(

) (2009).

      Turning to the question of attorney fees, we recognize that, “[g]enerally,

an award of attorney fees in Georgia must be authorized by statute or contract.”

Robinson v. Williams, 

 (

) (2006). At issue here


                                       3
is whether the cited statutory provision authorizes such an award. OCGA § 16-

5-94 (d) states as follows:

      The court may grant a protective order or approve a consent
      agreement to bring about a cessation of conduct constituting
      stalking. Orders or agreements may:
                   (1) Direct a party to refrain from such conduct;
                   (2) Order a party to refrain from harassing or
            interfering with the other;
                   (3) Award costs and attorney’s fees to either
            party; and
                   (4) Order either or all parties to receive
            appropriate psychiatric or psychological services as a
            further measure to prevent the recurrence of stalking.

This statutory authorization for attorney fees is in derogation of common law,

see Hudson v. Abercrombie, 

 (2) (a) (

) (1988); Bowers

v. Fulton County, 

 (1) (

) (1971), and, thus, must be

strictly construed, see Workman v. RL BB ACQ I-GA CVL, LLC, 

(1) (

) (2018); VSI Enterprises, Inc. v. Edwards, 

(2) (

) (1999).

      OCGA § 16-5-94 (d) is composed of two sentences. The first sentence

authorizes a trial court to grant “a protective order or approve a consent

agreement” to bring about an end to conduct constituting stalking. Id. See also

Durrance v. Schad, 

 (1) (

) (2018). The second

                                      4
sentence lists remedies that “orders or agreements may” include. OCGA § 16-5-

94 (d). This language vests the trial court with the authority to “fashion

appropriate relief from conduct designated as stalking.” Reynolds v. Kresge,

 (

) (2004). Reading these sentences

together, in the most natural and reasonable way, an award of costs and attorney

fees under OCGA § 16-5-94 (d) (3) depends in the first instance on the trial

court granting a protective order or approving a consent agreement “designed

to end the conduct constituting stalking.” See Durrance, 345 Ga. App. at 829.

Further, because the remedies in the second sentence are linked to the “orders

or agreements” authorized in the first sentence, it follows that any award of costs

and fees must be related to the “order or agreement” and must be included as

part of the actual protective order or approved consent agreement. See De Louis

v. Sheppard, 

 (

) (2006) (recognizing that

a “trial court may award costs and attorney fees . . . as part of a protective order

in a stalking case” (emphasis supplied)).

      Thus, properly construed, OCGA § 16-5-94 (d) authorizes an award of

costs and fees relating to the grant of a protective order (or approval of a consent

agreement) designed to end conduct constituting stalking and that is included

                                         5
as part of the actual order or agreement entered at the trial court level. As such,

we can conclude that the statute does not authorize independent awards for costs

and attorney fees or awards for appellate proceedings occurring subsequent to

the entry of the order.4 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding

that OCGA § 16-5-94 (d) (3) permits the award of costs and attorney fees related

to appellate proceedings occurring subsequent to the entry of a protective order,

and the judgment of that court is reversed.

      Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur, except Warren, J., who

concurs in judgment only. Ellington, J., disqualified.




      4
        Of course, there are other remedies for frivolous appeals. See Supreme Court
Rule 6; Court of Appeals Rule 7 (e) (2).

                                         6
                  Decided February 18, 2019.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 

.

Turner & Lawrence, William H. Turner, Jr., for appellants.

James Bates Brannan Groover, Hays B. McQueen, for appellees.




                               7