Edwards v. Edwards, 30153
| Decision Date | 16 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 30153,30153 |
| Citation | 235 Ga. 199,219 S.E.2d 117 |
| Parties | James Bill EDWARDS v. Myra EDWARDS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Araguel & Sanders, Jerry D. Sanders, Columbus, for appellant.
Kelly, Champion, Denny & Pease, Philip J. Johnson, Columbus, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment finding the appellant in contempt of a previous decree ordering him to pay specified child support payments. The divorce decree awarded the mother custody of the four children and provided that the father pay an amount equal to fifty percent of his net income (which is defined) for the support and maintenance of the four minor children. While no amount is allocated to any one child, the decree does provide that child support payments will be reduced by fifteen percent as each child reaches the age of eighteen, but by not less than $100 per month.
Subsequently one child who was over the age of fourteen elected to live with the father. The father then filed an action to modify the decree to reduce the amount of child support and to award him custody of the child who resided with him. The court order changed custody of the one child to the father but did not reduce the support provisions of the decree. Having obtained custody of one of the four children, the father reduced the amount of child support by $100 per month. A few months later the mother cited the father for comtempt predicated upon the reduction of the child support payments. A hearing was held and an order was entered which stated that the court found the defendant was 'not in wilful contempt.' There was no appeal from the order nor is there a transcript of the hearing. Approximately six months later the mother again cited the father for contempt predicated upon the reduction of the child support payments. The father moved to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata. The trial court after a hearing overruled the motion, found the father to be in wilful contempt and allowed him to purge himself of the contempt by payment of the amount of $1,000 and $250 attorney fees.
1. Assuming but not deciding that the principle of res judicata is applicable to these proceedings, it cannot be said that the appellant carried the burden on his motion because of the ambiguities that arise from the record, viz., the generality of the order holding that the father was not in wilful contempt and the lack of a transcript of the first contempt hearing. See Beach v. Beach, 224 Ga. 701(1), 164 S.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strealdorf v. C.I.R.
...a family unit and cannot be prorated among the wife and children except as specifically provided in the decree." Edwards v. Edwards, 235 Ga. 199, 200, 219 S.E.2d 117, 118 (1975); accord Lord v. Lord, 231 Ga. 164, 200 S.E.2d 759 (1973); Adams v. Adams, 225 Ga. 375, 376, 169 S.E.2d 160, 161 (......
-
Nash v. Nash
...(became 21, etc.) had been changed. The wife also relies upon Lord v. Lord, 231 Ga. 164, 200 S.E.2d 759 (1973), Edwards v. Edwards, 235 Ga. 199, 219 S.E.2d 117 (1975), and Bailey v. Bailey, 242 Ga. 289, 248 S.E.2d 662 (1978). Those cases did not involve the authority of the court to make a ......
-
Newsome v. Newsome, 31042
...of contractual obligations in contempt proceedings whereas Code § 30-207 applies to jury awards of child support. Edwards v. Edwards, 235 Ga. 199, 219 S.E.2d 117 (1975), also was a contempt proceeding and the question of specified amount was not in issue. McClure v. McClure, 235 Ga. 119, 21......
-
Van Dyck v. Van Dyck
...event regarding the children, such as a change of custody, except as specifically provided in the decree. Edwards v. Edwards, 235 Ga. 199, 200(2), 219 S.E.2d 117 (1975); Lord v. Lord, 231 Ga. 164(1), 200 S.E.2d 759 (1973). Here, the agreement did not provide for automatic proration based up......