Zep, Inc. v. Yolanda Devost, as Duly Appointed Representative of the Estate of Clarence Glenn, Deceased, et al.

Summary

This Georgia Court of Appeals opinion addresses five consolidated appeals arising from the appointment of a special master in mass-tort litigation. The court held that the plaintiffs acquiesced in the appointment, but that the trial court erred by rejecting their affidavits of indigency without the hearing required by OCGA § 9-15-2. The court vacated the contempt ruling and the order imposing joint and several liability for special-master fees, remanding for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a special master. Plaintiffs acquiesced in the appointment after agreeing with the proposed special master and proposing a fee structure, and they did not timely move for reconsideration or modification based on inability to pay or other alleged Rule 46 defects.
2. After plaintiffs filed untraversed affidavits of indigency, the trial court was required to conduct a hearing before ordering them to pay special-master fees. The trial court's in-camera review of documents and prior contempt hearing did not satisfy that statutory hearing requirement.
3. The contempt ruling had to be vacated because the trial court did not conduct the hearing required after plaintiffs filed their affidavits of indigency. The court therefore declined to reach whether plaintiffs' inability to pay defeated contempt or whether the ten-day payment order was proper.
4. The trial court abused its discretion by imposing joint and several liability on all parties for special-master fees before any merits determination or final judgment. That portion of the appointment order was vacated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a special master under Uniform Superior Court Rule 46.
2. Whether plaintiffs acquiesced in the appointment and therefore waived their challenge to the appointment order.
3. Whether the trial court could reject or inquire into plaintiffs' untraversed affidavits of indigency and order payment of special-master fees without conducting a hearing.
4. Whether the trial court properly held plaintiffs in contempt for failing to pay their allocated special-master fees.
5. Whether the trial court could impose joint and several liability on all parties for special-master fees before a merits determination or final judgment.

Disposition

other