Amos v. Amos

• Decision Date: 10 October 1956
• Docket Number: No. 19473,19473
• Citation: Amos v. Amos, 212 Ga. 670, 95 S.E.2d 5 (Ga. 1956)
• Parties: Hughleen Beason AMOS v. Charles D. AMOS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 5

95 S.E.2d 5

212 Ga. 670

Hughleen Beason AMOS v.Charles D. AMOS.

No. 19473.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 10, 1956.

Syllabus by the Court

The court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition, which sought to modify and reform a divoce decree as to the award of custody of a minor child and as to alimony for the support of the child.

Jack Rogers, Clinton J. Morgan, Wright, Rogers, Magruder & Hoyt, Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Scoggin & Martin, Rome, for defendant in error.

ALMAND, Justice.

In a divorce decree entered in July, 1950, Hughleen Beason Amos was granted a total divorce from Charles D. Amos, in which she was awarded the 'full and complete custody and control' of Ann Amos, the daughter of the parties, and in the decree it was provided that the father of the child should pay to the mother'for her support and the support of said child the sum of $50 per month until said child becomes 21 years of age or married.'Attached to the decree, which the court made a part thereof, was a written agreement of the parties, whereby the father agreed to pay to the mother'for the support and maintenance of their child, the sum of Fifty (50.00) Dollars per month.'

In April 1956, the father of the child filed a petition with process, in the court which rendered the divorce decree, seeking to modify the decree so as to permit him to have reasonable hours of visitation of the child, and to amend the decree so as to strike from the provision as to support the words 'her support and,' so that the amended decree would provide that the support paid to the mother would be 'for the support of said child.'The mother filed a general demurrer to the petition as amended, on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action, and the demurrer was overruled.The bill of exceptions assigns error on this order.

1.The sole ground on which the father seeks to have the divorce decree amended as to the custody of the child, so that the child may visit him or he visit the child, was that it would be for the best interest of the child to permit her to visit him, and that the action of the mother in denying him access to his daughter 'is to spite, annoy, and injure the petitioner.'After expiration of the term at which a decree was entered, it is out of the power of the court to modify or revise it in any matter of substance.Carswell v. Shannon, 209 Ga. 596(2), 74 S.E.2d 850;Perry v. Perry, 212 Ga. 668, 95 S.E.2d 2.

2.Where the parties in a...