Chandler v. Chandler
| Decision Date | 15 July 1948 |
| Docket Number | 16208. |
| Citation | 48 S.E.2d 841,204 Ga. 40 |
| Parties | CHANDLER v. CHANDLER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert M. McCartney, of East Point, and Thomas E McLemore, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
John R. Burress and Francis Y. Fife, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. While a judgment for permanent alimony, based upon an agreement of the parties, which was not excepted to and which judgment contained no reservation of jurisdiction for the purpose of later modifying the same, passes beyond the discretionary control of the trial judge, and he has no authority thereafter to modify the terms of such judgment (Coffee v. Coffee, 101 Ga. 787, 28 S.E. 977; Wilkins v. Wilkins, 146 Ga. 382, 91 S.E. 415), yet where such judgment for permanent alimony is based upon an agreement of the parties and the judgment reserves the right of the judge of the superior court to modify the same in the exercise of his discretion in accordance with the economic condition of the husband thereafter, the judge may, on application of the wife subsequently to such judgment, modify the same in accordance with the terms of the agreement of the parties, which was made the judgment of the court. Hardy v. Pennington, 187 Ga. 523, 1 S.E.2d 667.
2. In the present case, the agreement of the parties, which was made the judgment of the court, provided for the payment of $20 per month as permanent alimony, and further provided for retention of jurisdiction in the court to modify the award upon a showing of 'a substantial increase in the earnings' of the husband. On a first application for modification, based on the ground of an increase in the earnings of the husband, the alimony was increased to $35 per month. This judgment was unexcepted to. Thereafter the present application for modification, based solely upon an alleged change in the economic condition of the wife, was filed. In the judgment denying this application, the trial court ordered that the agreement of the parties be declared the law of the case for the reason that it failed to provide that the court retain jurisdiction to modify the award. Although the trial court erred in assigning this as a reason for denying the application, the judgment is correct in so far as it holds that the application set forth no valid ground for modification as contemplated by the terms of the agreement. However, it was error to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramsay v. Sims
...26 S.E.2d 598; Fuller v. Fuller, 197 Ga. 719, 723, 30 S.E.2d 600; Kirkland v. Kirkland, 200 Ga. 873, 875, 38 S.E.2d 838; Chandler v. Chandler, 204 Ga. 40, 48 S.E.2d 841; Varble v. Hughes 205 Ga. 29, 31, 52 S.E.2d 303; Burch v. Kenmore, 206 Ga. 277, 279, 56 S.E.2d 508; Yarborough v. Yarborou......
-
Gorvin v. Stegmann, 39393
...purposes of later modification, the trial courts of Georgia had no jurisdiction or authority to thereafter modify it. Chandler v. Chandler, 204 Ga. 40, 48 S.E.2d 841 (1948); Estes v. Estes, 192 Ga. 100, 14 S.E.2d 680 (1941), see also Estes v. Estes, 192 Ga. 94, 14 S.E.2d 681; and Nipper v. ......
-
Goodloe v. Goodloe
...showing, does retain jurisdiction of the case for that purpose. Hardy v. Pennington, 187 Ga. 523, 1 S.E.2d 667; Chandler v. Chandler, 204 Ga. 40, 48 S.E.2d 841; Breen v. Breen, 208 Ga. 767, 69 S.E.2d That ruling has not been extended to include judgments awarding custody of minor children b......
-
Bowers v. Bowers
... ... S.E. 382; Crowell v. Crowell, 191 Ga. 36, 11 S.E.2d ... 190; Bank of Tupelo v. Collier, 192 Ga. 409, 412, 15 ... S.E.2d 499. See also Chandler v. Chandler, 204 Ga ... 40, 48 S.E.2d 841; Varble v. Hughes, 205 Ga. 29, 52 ... S.E.2d 303, yet the custody of the child may subsequently be ... ...