Certain characteristics of the law governing divorce actions and requests for admission make the latter an effective discovery tool in many of the former. This article discusses the use and implications of written requests for admission (“RFA”) in Georgia divorce proceedings.

At their root, RFAs enable parties to obtain admissions of the truth of stated facts and the authenticity of attached documents for the purposes of expediting trial and clarifying the issues in a case.(1) Applicable law, however, permits an even broader scope to such requests. One party may serve another with a written request for the admission of the truth of any matters that are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in a case “and that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request.”(2)

By permitting requests regarding opinions of fact and the application of law to fact, the governing statute essentially enables litigants to prove or disprove entire causes of action, potentially avoiding a trial altogether. The only subject which RFAs cannot explore is a pure conclusion of law. For instance, in a divorce case, an RFA presumably cannot ask one spouse to admit that the other is entitled to alimony, unless preceding RFAs have addressed the facts on which a court awards alimony and then posed one or more requests applying the law to those facts.

The teeth of RFAs stem from the manner in which admissions arise and from their conclusive effect. By statute, “[e]ach matter of which an admission is requested … is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by his attorney…”(3) Additionally, “[a]ny matter admitted … is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.”(4)

The automatic admission arising from a failure to timely respond to RFAs makes them a potentially potent, and admittedly annoying (to the party receiving them), discovery tool. While a rule of court generally limits the time within which parties may enforce their discovery requests, that rule does not obviate a receiving party from answering RFAs served after expiration of that deadline.(5) Litigants cannot simply ignore RFAs served after expiration of the applicable discovery period. Rather, they either must timely a) serve objections referencing the expiration of the discovery period or b) move for a protective order on that ground.(6) If they fail to do either, they then must move to withdraw the resulting admissions or else face the consequences of having all matters contained in the RFAs admitted by operation of law.(7)

Divorce actions pair particularly well with RFAs. Unlike in most other legal actions, the law precludes entry of a default judgment in a divorce case: “No verdict or judgment by default shall be taken in any such case but the allegations of the pleadings shall be established to the satisfaction of the court by the verified pleadings, by affidavit, by evidentiary hearing, or otherwise…”(8) Critically though, when a spouse fails to answer or otherwise plead in response to a complaint for divorce, a statute permits the court to determine “the existence of the grounds for divorce” and determine “issues of alimony, child support, child custody, and other issues” without an evidentiary hearing, on the basis of “the verified pleadings of either party, one or more affidavits, or such other basis or procedure as the court may deem proper in its discretion.”(9)

Defendant-spouses who do not retain an attorney in divorce actions not only fail to file an answer to the complaint in many cases but likewise fail to serve responses to RFAs in a timely fashion, if at all. In any such case, if a plaintiff-spouse was savvy enough to serve RFAs addressing all issues raised in the complaint, the plaintiff could move for judgment on the pleadings seeking divorce, alimony, child support, child custody, and/or equitable division of marital assets, all in the manner desired by the plaintiff. The plaintiff-spouse could support the motion entirely with the RFAs’ conclusive admissions which resulted by operation of law. And if the defendant-spouse continues to appear pro se, he likely will fail to seek withdrawal of the admissions or to raise sufficient grounds for their withdrawal, thereby letting the admissions stand and allowing resolution of the entire case without a trial.(10)

(1) Sayers v. Artistic Kitchen Design, LLC, 280 Ga.App. 223, 226(2), 633 S.E.2d 619 (2006), citing Brankovic v. Snyder, 259 Ga.App. 579, 583, 578 S.E.2d 203 (2003). (2) O.C.G.A. § 9-11-36(a)(1). See also O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b)(1). (3) O.C.G.A. § 9-11-36(a)(2). (4) O.C.G.A. § 9-11-36(b). (5) See Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.1; and Monolith Companies, LLC v. Hunter Douglas Hospitality, Inc., 333 Ga.App. 898, 900-901, 777 S.E.2d 726 (2015). (6) Monolith Companies, supra, 333 Ga.App. at 901. (7) Id., at 901-902 (8) O.C.G.A. § 19-5-8. (9) O.C.G.A. § 19-5-10(a). (10) Monolith Companies, supra, 333 Ga.App. at 901-902.