Wright v. Wright
Annotate this CaseThese cases involved the repeated efforts of Willie Wright (“Husband”), who was incarcerated and filing pro se, to vacate and set aside the divorce decree entered in 2010 in the divorce action filed by Kenya Young Wright (“Wife”). In an earlier appearance of this case, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated the trial court order denying Husband’s motion to set aside the final decree and remanded for the trial court to make findings on the issue of whether notice of the decree was given to Husband. On remand, the trial court scheduled a hearing, and Husband filed a request for an order requiring the authorities to produce him to the court to attend the hearing, but this request was denied. The trial court denied Husband’s motion to set aside. Husband filed both a notice of appeal and an application for discretionary appeal, and the Supreme Court granted the application, stating it was concerned with whether the trial court erred in concluding it had satisfied its duty under OCGA 15-6-21 (c) to provide notice of the entry of the final judgment and decree. This appeal was docketed as Case No. S16A1250. Prior to the date the case was docketed, the trial court entered an order purporting to dismiss the "action" (apparently meaning the appeal of Husband's failing to file a notice to appeal within a ten-day deadline). Husband appealed the dismissal order and an application for discretionary appeal. The Supreme Court granted review of dismissal of the "action," which was docketed as Case No. 16A1248. Husband applied to appeal the trial court's order denying an order to produce him at the motion hearing. After review, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in 16A1248 for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that in case No. 16A1250, the trial court made no findings with respect to whether the trial court provided notice as required by statute. The Order was therefore reversed and the matter remanded for further consideration of Husband's motion to set aside.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.