Baldree v. Baldree, 39908
| Decision Date | 08 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 39908,39908 |
| Citation | 306 S.E.2d 654,251 Ga. 481 |
| Parties | BALDREE v. BALDREE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jack W. Carter, Adel, J. Laddie Boatright, Hazlehurst, for Ida Jane Booth Baldree.
J. Reese Franklin, Nashville, W. Edward Meeks, Jr., Walters, Davis, Smith & Meeks, P.C., Ocilla, for Howard C. Baldree. SMITH, Justice.
These parties were divorced by judgment entered in April, 1981, with all other issues reserved for trial. In March 1982, the uncle of Howard Baldree, appellee, died. The uncle's will provided that Howard Baldree would inherit about 300 acres of land and certain other personal property, and named him as executor. The will had been admitted to probate but the estate had not yet been distributed among the legatees and title to the real property had not vested in Howard Baldree, when the issue of alimony was tried to a jury in October 1982. One day prior to trial, Howard Baldree's motion in limine to exclude evidence of his pending inheritance from the jury's consideration in awarding alimony to Jane Baldree was sustained. She was subsequently awarded $14,500 in a lump sum. We granted Jane Baldree's application for discretionary appeal. The question here is whether it was error to exclude evidence of this pending inheritance as evidence of Howard Baldree's financial resources. We reverse.
This case presents a novel factual situation. 1 Unlike Meeks v. Kirkland, 228 Ga. 607, 187 S.E.2d 296 (1972), where we held that no allowance of alimony could be made out of a bare expectancy or possibility of an inheritance to be derived from a then-living testator, Howard Baldree's uncle had died testate at the time of trial on the issue of alimony. The instant case is more like Hand v. Hand, 244 Ga. 41, 257 S.E.2d 507 (1979), where we said that an inheritance received after the institution of divorce proceedings is subject to the award of alimony. We find further support for our conclusion in Stumpf v. Stumpf, 249 Ga. 759, 294 S.E.2d 488 (1982), which examines the question of whether military retirement pay of an already retired party is relevant to the determination of an alimony award in a divorce action. We held that such retirement pay is relevant to the jury's determination of an award of alimony, and we further stated that a jury can hear evidence of all of a party's assets as relevant to such an award. Although Howard Baldree's inheritance was not yet a fixed or certain amount at the time of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGinn v. McGinn
...can hear evidence of any currently held asset, even though its value is not fixed or certain at the time of trial. Baldree v. Baldree, 251 Ga. 481, 306 S.E.2d 654 (1983). See also Courtney v. Courtney, 256 Ga. 97(1), 344 S.E.2d 421 (1986). Similarly, in determining the gross income upon whi......
-
Searcy v. Searcy, S05A1816.
...of the estates, Husband's two brothers (hereinafter "Co-executors"), as defendants. The trial court cited Baldree v. Baldree, 251 Ga. 481, 306 S.E.2d 654 (1983), for the proposition that evidence of a pending inheritance is properly considered for purposes of awarding alimony, then went far......
-
Courtney v. Courtney, 43093
...or periodic, any such award may reflect the jury's consideration of the husband's potential retirement benefits. Baldree v. Baldree, 251 Ga. 481, 482, 306 S.E.2d 654 (1983). Thus, we find the evidence relevant and admissible as to 2. We next turn to the question of equitable division of pro......
- Murff v. State