Daniel v. Daniel
Decision Date | 24 May 2004 |
Docket Number | No. S04A0740.,S04A0740. |
Citation | 596 S.E.2d 608,277 Ga. 871 |
Parties | DANIEL v. DANIEL. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Shepherd & Johnston, Lance N. Owen, Griffin, for appellant.
Alan W. Connell, Thomaston, for appellee.
When Gerald Daniel (Husband) and Mary Daniel (Wife) divorced, the final decree provided that he was to pay her $3,750 in "alimony" for a 36-month period, and then $1,500 per month until her death or remarriage. He subsequently brought an action to modify the $3,750 downward. Wife opposed the modification. She contended that only the $1,500 per month obligation was terminable upon her death or remarriage and, thus, that amount was the only modifiable alimony. The trial court granted Wife's motion to dismiss, holding that the monthly $3,750 was "lump sum alimony" and non-modifiable. See OCGA § 19-6-21. Nash v. Nash, 244 Ga. 749, 750(1), 262 S.E.2d 64 (1979), overruled on other grounds, Winokur v. Winokur, 258 Ga. 88, 90(1), 365 S.E.2d 94 (1988). See also Dillard v. Dillard, 265 Ga. 478, 458 S.E.2d 102 (1995). Husband applied for a discretionary appeal, but his application was denied.
When Husband did not pay, Wife moved that he be held in contempt. The trial court found that he was in contempt, whereupon he filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay in order that the trial court could determine in the context of the contempt proceeding the dischargeability of the $3,750 in monthly "alimony." After conducting a hearing, the trial court concluded that the obligation "was for the maintenance and support of [Wife] and is not dischargeable in bankruptcy...." Husband filed an application for discretionary appeal, which this Court granted in order to consider the trial court's ruling in light of the earlier determination that the obligation is not modifiable periodic alimony.
Hamilton v. Finch, 238 Ga. 78(1), 230 S.E.2d 881 (1976). See also Winokur v. Winokur, supra at 88(1), 365 S.E.2d 94; Bisno v. Bisno, 239 Ga. 388, 236 S.E.2d 755 (1977). "Equitable property division" differs from both alimony and the settlement of property claims involving disputed title or joint ownership. Stokes v. Stokes, supra at 767-768(3), 273 S.E.2d 169.
Under the laws of this state, the court or jury has the authority to award the property of one spouse to the other spouse based solely on an equitable division of property. [Cit.] This right does not rely upon fraud or trust theories, but arises from the marital relationship.
Bedford v. Bedford, 246 Ga. 780, 781, 273 S.E.2d 167 (1980). Thus, equitable property division represents the " Wagan v. Wagan, 263 Ga. 376, 377, 434 S.E.2d 475 (1993).
The purpose behind the doctrine of equitable division of marital property is "to assure that property accumulated during the marriage be fairly distributed between the parties." [Cit.] Only property acquired as a direct result of the labor and investments of the parties during the marriage is subject to equitable division. [Cit.]
Payson v. Payson, 274 Ga. 231, 232(1), 552 S.E.2d 839 (2001).
Manuel v. Manuel, 239 Ga. 685, 687-688, 238 S.E.2d 328 (1977). Accordingly, the controlling issue is whether this particular award of lump sum alimony is for Wife's maintenance or support, even though it is in the "nature" of a property settlement rather than periodic alimony. Manuel v. Manuel, supra at 688, 238 S.E.2d 328. See also Lewis v. Lewis, 258 Ga. 617, 373 S.E.2d 18 (1988).
In making this determination, a trial court is permitted Manuel v. Manuel, supra at 689, 238 S.E.2d 328.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Doe v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth.
-
Rogers v. McGahee
...its concurrent jurisdiction and make such a determination on each of the three debts at issue. Factors set forth in Daniel v. Daniel, 277 Ga. 871, 596 S.E.2d 608 (2004), and the cases cited therein should be considered in making the determination.4 [ i]n conducting this inquiry, a court can......
-
White v. Howard
...gross” or “lump sum alimony” are also sometimes used to distinguish awards from modifiable “periodic alimony.” See Daniel v. Daniel, 277 Ga. 871, 871, 596 S.E.2d 608 (2004). A gross or lump sum alimony award is characterized by an “exact number and amount of payments ‘without other limitati......
- Munroe v. Universal Health Services, Inc.
-
Reluctance or Apathy? Examining Georgia's Continued Adherence to a Strict Mutuality Issue Preclusion Doctrine
...633 S.E.2d 337, 339 (Ga. 2006) ("Collateral estoppel, like res judicata, requires identity of parties or privity."); Daniel v. Daniel, 596 S.E.2d 608, 611 (Ga. 2004) ("The collateral estoppel doctrine precludes the re-litigation of an issue previously adjudicated on the merits in an action ......