Goodrum v. Fuller, 31626
| Decision Date | 26 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 31626,31626 |
| Citation | 229 S.E.2d 639,237 Ga. 833 |
| Parties | Donald R. GOODRUM v. Carol B. FULLER, formerly Goodrum. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Telford, Stewart & Stephens, J. Douglas Stewart, William H. Blalock, Jr., Gainesville, for appellant.
Robert J. Reed, Gainesville, for appellee.
In 1962 Carol B. Goodrum and Donald R. Goodrum were divorced. An agreement entered into between the parties and made a part of the divorce decree provided for child support of $100 per month for each of the couple's three children. The agreement included the following language: '(P)rovided however that in the event a child is enrolled in college when he or she attains the age of 21 years and is not married or self-supporting, and remains continuously enrolled in college, then there shall be no reduction in the amount of payments specified herein because of such child's attainment of the age of 21 years until such child completes 4 years of college.' In 1968, after the former wife had again married, the amount of child support was increased by $66.67 monthly for each of said children. This agreement, approved by the trial court, included a stipulation that the increase in child support payments awarded was based upon the former husband's then income 'in the sum of $29,000 per year,' which was his net income after the payment of Federal income tax. The present complaint seeking a second modification of the original decree was filed in April, 1976 after the oldest of the couple's three children had completed college. The trial court entered a decree in which it found that the increase in the former husband's income was so substantial as to demand a modification of the prior decree, and increasing the child support by providing in part: The decree then provides that it is the purpose and intent of the order as amended to carry out the terms and conditions of those provisions of said decree providing for a college education for the two minor children still within college age.
The former husband appeals and enumerates the judgment of the trial court as error as being an unauthorized modification of the prior decree, contends that the award of educational benefits was excessive in amount, was made contrary to the evidence, and constituted an abuse of discretion or, in the alternative, reflected the complete absence of the exercise of discretion by the trial court and was thus error.
The first question for decision is whether the original contract entered into between the parties, and approved by the trial court, authorized the interpretation placed thereon by the trial court that it was the intent of the parties that the father provide a college education for the children.
Code § 20-702 p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Fulton Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 37023
...§ 20-702; Brown v. Farkas (195 Ga. 653, 25 S.E.2d 411).' Ramsay v. Sims, 209 Ga. 228, 237, 71 S.E.2d 639 (1952)." Goodrum v. Fuller, 237 Ga. 833, 835, 229 S.E.2d 639 (1976). The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent ......
-
Coleman v. Coleman
...be imposed." Clavin v. Clavin, 238 Ga. 421, 422, 233 S.E.2d 151, 152 (1977). Accord, Golden v. Golden, supra. Compare Goodrum v. Fuller, 237 Ga. 833, 229 S.E.2d 639 (1976); Anderson v. Powell, 235 Ga. 738, 221 S.E.2d 565 (1975); McClain v. McClain, 235 Ga. 659, 221 S.E.2d 561 (1975), where ......
- Richardson v. Richardson
-
Yancey v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 2453-77
...evidence. Suarez v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 857, 861 (1977); Usher v. Usher, 442 F. Supp. 866, 868 (N.D. Ga. 1977); Goodrum v. Fuller, 237 Ga. 833, 229 S.E.2d 639, 640 (1976). 5 In the instant case, however, we have a specific statutory provision providing for a special exception to the norma......