Beebe v. Beebe, 26269
| Citation | 179 S.E.2d 758,227 Ga. 248 |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26269,26269 |
| Parties | Jennie J. BEEBE v. John L. BEEBE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a divorce decree provides for the husband to pay alimony to the wife until she remarries the husband is relieved of making further alimony payments when she enters into a ceremonial marriage although such marriage may later be annulled because the second 'husband' has a living undivorced spouse.
This appeal arises from a judgment enjoining Jennie J. Beebe from seeking to have an execution issued upon the alimony provisions of a divorce decree, the court finding that John Beebe's alimony obligations under such divorce decree terminated upon the ceremonial marriage (subsequently annulled) of Jennie J. Beebe to Lloyd J. Reese in September 1968. The sole question for determination is whether the obligation of a husband to pay alimony to his wife, under a decree which provides for monthly payments until such time as the wife might remarry, is ended when she enters into a ceremonial marriage which is later annulled because the other party to such marriage had in life a wife by a prior undissolved marriage.
John M. Graham, III, Matthews, Maddox, Walton & Smith, Rome, for appellant.
Harl C. Duffey, Jr., Robert J. Evans, Rome, for appellee.
1. No Georgia decision directly in point has been cited by counsel for either party and we have found none.
Counsel for the wife cite cases wherein it was held the phrase 'until she remarries' would not be construed as meaning 'when she enters into ceremonial marriage forbidden by law and thus void,' while counsel for the husband cites cases holding that the entering into such subsequent marriage, though void, relieves the first husband from any further obligation to support the wife. For a collection of some of these cases, see 48 A.L.R.2d 296.
Some of the cited cases are based upon statutory law reviving the obligation of the first husband in the event the wife's second marriage is void, others upon statutes permitting alimony from the second 'husband' although the marriage is declared to be void, and yet others upon public policy with some courts declaring that the public policy of the state requires the wife is to be supported and since there is no requirement upon the second 'husband' to support her the duty reverts to the first husband. Other courts have held that the wife having elected to rely upon another man for support, together with the fact that such act on her part would lead the first husband into a belief that he could undertake obligations and change his life pattern as a result of the wife's second 'marriage,' which obligations, if undertaken, could place him in an intolerable position if again, through no fault of his own, he were required to undertake the support of his first wife.
Much emphasis is placed on the fact that the wife's 'ceremonial marriage' to the second 'husband' is void from its inception and that under the decision in Gearllach v. Odom, 200 Ga. 350, 37 S.E.2d 184, no one can claim any rights under such a void marriage contract. However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Peters, 55911
...and automatically terminates the alimony obligation. See, e.g., Surabian v. Surabian, 285 N.E.2d 909 (Mass.1972); Beebe v. Beebe, 227 Ga. 248, 179 S.E.2d 758 (1971); Chavez v. Chavez, 82 N.M. 624, 485 P.2d 735 Still other cases decide the issue where an agreement or decree is involved by as......
-
Joye v. Yon, 3335.
...minority of courts reject the void/voidable distinction and refuse to reinstate alimony under any circumstances. Beebe v. Beebe, 227 Ga. 248, 179 S.E.2d 758, 760 (1971) ("[T]he distinction between so-called void and voidable ceremonial marriages is more imaginary than real, and the relation......
-
Glass v. Glass
...husband. Keeney v. Keeney, 211 La. 585, 30 So.2d 549 (1947); Torgan v. Torgan, 159 Colo. 93, 410 P.2d 167 (1966); Beebe v. Beebe, 227 Ga. 248, 179 S.E.2d 758 (1971); Gaines v. Jacobsen, 308 N.Y. 218, 124 N.E.2d 290 (1954); Surabian v. Surabian, 362 Mass. 342, 285 N.E.2d 909 (1972); Chavez v......
-
MacPherson v. MacPherson
...void-voidable distinction and, hinging their decision at least in part on equitable grounds, refuse the wife recovery. Beebe v. Beebe, 227 Ga. 248, 179 S.E.2d 758 (1971) ; Torgan v. Torgan, 159 Colo. 93, 410 P.2d 167 (1966) ; Denberg v. Frischman, 24 A.D.2d 100, 263 N.Y. S.2d 114 (1965), af......