Nina Svoren | Toccoa Family Lawyer

I represented a wife who was served with divorce papers by a husband who claimed to have immediately regretted his action. He apologized to her the same day and told her he would have it dismissed. In reality, he allowed it to remain pending. He and his wife continued to live together in their home as husband and wife, with the normal ups and downs that spouses have. A year later, the husband and his attorney attended a final hearing where the husband obtained a divorce decree that evicted the wife from the home. No notice of the hearing was received by the wife, and she was not entitled to notice because she had not filed a response to the initial lawsuit. The husband kept the fact of their divorced status secret from her for several months, only bringing it up when they had an argument and he told her to get out. It was the first she knew that they were divorced. I filed a motion to set aside the divorce based on fraud and lack of due process. I spent a considerable amount of time gathering photographs and other evidence of the parties vacationing together, being affectionate, and the husband buying jewelry for her during the so-called ""separation."" All this was in an effort to show that the husband had fraudulently induced the wife to believe the action had been dismissed, excusing her failure to file responsive pleadings. I worked with my client to prepare her for her testimony. The husband's attorney was not able to make a dent in her credibility and the judge set aside the divorce decree. I represented a father in a custody case that was finally closed out last year after pending for five years. He had obtained custody of his children after the mother failed to report that one of their children had been molested by a family member. A year after obtaining custody, this father was accused of breaking in to a neighbor's home and attempting to assault her. He was released on bail and adamant that he was innocent. His ex-wife immediately filed an action to re-gain custody of their children. She subpoenaed the alleged victim in the criminal case to the temporary hearing. The alleged victim was not entirely convincing that she had correctly identified the perpetrator of the crime, who had been partially disguised. That, coupled with strong affidavits that I had gathered in support of my client, caused the judge to find that there was no compelling emergency requiring a change of temporary custody. He assigned a Guardian ad Litem and ordered psychological evaluations. My client made good impressions on both. The ex-wife kept hoping that he would eventually go to prison so she would win by default. The criminal case took a long time to resolve was dismissed after a mistrial. The ex-wife realized she had no other reason to continue fighting and we settled the case with an even better parenting plan for my client.

I am a very detail-oriented person. I want my clients to understand why their case is going the way it is, whether positive or negative. I take time to explain things both from a legal and practical standpoint about moves they want to make or I am suggesting they make. I have found that clients who who have had experience with other lawyers are surprised and thankful that I took a personal interest in their case and in their circumstances.

Level of attention to and interest in their case, experience, and cost, usually in that order.

In domestic relations cases, it is extremely important, particularly in matters where the judge is the sole decisionmaker, such as custody, or contempt of court. I do not take custody cases in counties where I am unfamiliar with the judges presiding in the circuit. There is too much at risk to not be aware of the issues that affect a judge's reasoning in a fact-driven case such as child custody. Where the primary issues are legal, and not factual -- for instances, whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a particular claim, local knowledge is not as significant. But where you are dealing with mothers and fathers, grandparents, and others seeking custody of minor children, it is critical to know what that judge thinks about recurring issues like having a boyfriend spend the night, a parent who occasionally smokes marijuana, or even a parent who works a night-shift job.

If the person has to travel a long distance, I will learn about the case and quote a fee over the phone. However, if they are within a 45 min. drive, my preference is to have them come in and bring their paperwork, if any, and discuss their case in more depth. Over the phone, they can find out whether their case is the type that I handle, what deadlines they may be facing, and a projection of the possible timeline of their case, depending on whether they are plaintiff or defendant, or whether it is a felony or misdemeanor.

Domestic relations: The relief they are seeking, when they were served (if defendant), and in what county the matter is pending or will be filed. Criminal: Date of arrest, charges, date of arraignment, if known, whether there is a driver's license suspension notice (if DUI) or an asset forfeiture (if drug-related)

I have 24 years experience handling almost exclusively domestic relations and criminal defense cases. I am candid with clients about the likelihood of success in pursuing a particular course of action. In my early career I was an assistant public defender. I graduated from Emory Law School.

Helping people who genuinely have the best interest of a child at heart.

Travel, performing in theatre, reading non-fiction, and being a mom.

I am the past president and first female member of the Toccoa Kiwanis Club, but after having my children, I am not currently involved in any civic organizations.

• National College of DUI Defense | General Member | 2000 - Present
  Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Member | 1993 - Present
  State Bar of Georgia | Member | 1992 - Present
  American Bar Association | Member | 1992 - Present
  Mountain Judicial Circuit Bar Association | Past President | 2006 - 2008
  

• Palmer v. State, 282 Ga. 466 (2007)
  Trial court improperly dismissed special demurrers filed within 10 days of arraignment.

• Sellers v. State, 263 Ga. App. 144 (2003)
  State required to use full name of child in indictment, not just initials.

• State v. Winnie, 242 Ga. App. 228 (2000)
  No articulable suspicion to detain car pulling out of parking lot of closed business late at night.

• Heard v. State, 325 Ga. App. 135 (2013)
  Consent was involuntary product of prolonged detention at traffic stop absent articulable suspicion, even though detention only lasted four minutes.

• LinkedIn
• Resources
• Practice Areas
• For More Information - Nina M. Svoren
• FAQ
• NMS Law Firm