Gorman v. Gorman
| Decision Date | 28 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 32309,32309 |
| Citation | 239 Ga. 312,236 S.E.2d 652 |
| Parties | Marcelle Carson GORMAN v. John Berry GORMAN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John C. Tyler, Atlanta, for appellant.
J. B. Gorman, pro se.
The case originated by the filing of a complaint for a divorce and permanent alimony by the appellant, Marcelle Gorman, in the Superior Court of Cobb County. In her complaint she petitioned for a divorce on grounds of adultery and prayed that she "be awarded temporary and permanent alimony and support for herself and the said minor children," and that "she be awarded such other and further relief as the court deems proper under the circumstances."
The appellee, husband, answered and counterclaimed, praying that he be granted a total divorce on the ground that the marriage was irretrievably broken and upon the statutory ground of cruel treatment. In answering the complaint, appellee stated that in contemplation of their separation he had entered into an agreement with the appellant on January 1, 1976, and had executed several warranty deeds to the appellant conveying to her an undivided one-half interest in several pieces of real property owned by him. He further prayed that he "be awarded the permanent use and title in fee simple of all property standing in his name or in the names of the plaintiff and defendant as co-tenants," and that he "have such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper . . . "
Prior to a hearing on the merits, the parties filed a stipulation concerning their real and personal properties. This stipulation set out both the husband's and wife's interest, any secured indebtedness, and payments due on each piece of real property jointly owned and the opinion of each on values. The parties further stipulated that this document was to be used for the purpose of being introduced into evidence in the case. Each party also filed with the court their proposed recommendations for the settlement of property, alimony and child support. Appellant's proposal for settlement of property, alimony and child support asked that she be awarded the family home but that all other real estate be retained in the joint names of the parties. The appellee's proposed recommendation for settlement of property contemplated an equitable division so as to divide the property equally between the parties but granting to the wife title to the family home. Both recommendations referred separately to division of property and alimony as being different awards by the court.
The Final Judgment and Decree was entered in July, 1976. It also referred to alimony and division of real property in separate captions. In its award of "alimony" the court ordered appellee to pay attorney fees in the amount of $400.00. No award of money other than child support was granted to the appellant although she received certain personal properties. The court's "division of property," however, granted permanent use, control and title in certain real properties, held by the parties jointly, to the wife while at the same time, granted the husband title to certain others. More specifically, the court granted the wife two parcels of real estate; the first being the family home, the equitable interest of the parties as declared being between $27,000 according to the wife's stipulation and $47,000 per the husband's; the second being a house and garage apartment, the equitable interest of the parties being $22,000 as stipulated by both. The husband was granted title to the real estate which comprised his business, the equitable interest of the parties being between $27,000 per the husband and $52,000 per the wife, and was given title to a vacant lot next to the family home, the equitable interest of the parties in this property being between $3,500 (wife's value) and $5,000 (husband's value). Each party was also ordered to make all monthly payments including taxes, assessments, and other fees as an obligation payable by the new owner of each parcel.
Thus the wife received equities in real estate in fee, valued at $49,000 (wife's value) and $69,000 (husband's value). The husband received equities of $55,000 (wife's value) and $32,000 (husband's value).
Appellant filed notice of appeal from this Final Judgment and Decree alleging that the court had violated Code Ann. § 30-201 in awarding property owned by her to her husband. She also contended that the court had no legal authority to require her to make payments respecting the property which was awarded to her. We find her enumerations of error to be without merit and affirm.
1. The appellant contends that the court's division of property, granting the appellee title to two pieces of real estate that had been jointly held by the parties, is tantamount to an award of alimony to the husband and is therefore illegal under Code Ann. § 30-201. She argues that the present case is controlled by our decisions in Byrd v. Byrd, 238 Ga. 569, 233 S.E.2d 799 (1977); Scales v. Scales, 235 Ga. 509, 220 S.E.2d 267 (1975); and Barnes v. Barnes, 230 Ga. 226, 196 S.E.2d 390 (1973). We disagree.
In Byrd, supra, Scales, supra, and Barnes, supra, this court stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokes v. Stokes
...v. Acker, 240 Ga. 592, 242 S.E.2d 107 (1978); Hollandsworth v. Hollandsworth, 242 Ga. 790, 251 S.E.2d 532 (1979); Gorman v. Gorman, 239 Ga. 312(1), 236 S.E.2d 652 (1977). This is not a resulting trust case nor an inceptive fraud case. Hargrett v. Hargrett, supra. We deal here solely with th......
-
In re Ackley, Bankruptcy No. G92-20423-REB. Adv. No. 93-2035.
...task is the integration between the underlying rationale in the lump sum alimony cases and the rationale expressed in decisions like Gorman, supra, concerning property division.11 In addition, the statutory definition of alimony has been expanded and as a result, both state court equitable ......
-
In re Nix, Bankruptcy No. G90-21690-REB. Adv. No. 93-2038.
...181, 182, 378 S.E.2d 123 (1989). 4 A similar development occurred in property settlement/division decisions such as Gorman v. Gorman, 239 Ga. 312, 236 S.E.2d 652 (1977). In Gorman, it was held, in a line of cases which roughly paralleled the development of lump sum alimony by expanding the ......
-
Hargrett v. Hargrett
...parties hold as tenants-in-common), may be partitioned in a divorce action by the court as in an equitable proceeding. Gorman v. Gorman, 239 Ga. 312, 236 S.E.2d 652 (1977); Holloway v. Holloway, 233 Ga. 631, 212 S.E.2d 809 (1975); McLane v. McLane, 224 Ga. 748, 164 S.E.2d 821 (1968); Acker ......