Griggers v. Bryant, 31999
| Decision Date | 20 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 31999,31999 |
| Citation | 239 Ga. 244,236 S.E.2d 599 |
| Parties | Deborah Ann Langston Bryant GRIGGERS v. Gary Charles BRYANT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Howard P. Wallace, Griffin, for appellant.
Claude Christopher, Griffin, for appellee.
The parties to this appeal were divorced on October 3, 1975, appellant being awarded custody of their minor child. The final judgment and decree of divorce ordered the appellee to pay $25.00 per week as child support and granted him various visitation rights. This order, however, merely declared the rights of the parties and did not specifically set out any injunction prohibiting the father from taking possession of the child after it was awarded and placed in the custody of the mother. Several months after the divorce, the appellee obtained custody of the child and stopped all payments of child support. The appellant filed the present suit seeking that appellee be held in contempt for failure to pay the required child support and praying that the court compel the return of the child to its legal custodian. Upon hearing the case, the court denied appellant relief and she now appeals.
1. The appellant enumerates as error the court's failure to find the appellee in contempt of the final judgment and decree of divorce which had granted custody of the child to the appellant. Appellant contends that the appellee should be held in contempt of this decree since he is permanently withholding custody of the child from its rightful custodian under the decree. The final judgment and decree clearly states that the appellant is "granted permanent custody and control of the minor child of the parties." However, that same decree contains no direct order that requires the father to return the child at the end of a visitation period. Applying previous decisions of this court, the superior court found there was no injunction granted, nor any command to perform in the final judgment and decree which prohibited the appellee from taking possession of the child even though the mother had been awarded legal custody.
After thorough consideration of this case we overrule our decisions in Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751, 76 S.E.2d 15 (1953) and those cases that have subsequently followed it, Adams v. Adams, 221 Ga. 710, 146 S.E.2d 759 (1966); Mote v. Mote, 214 Ga. 134, 103 S.E.2d 565 (1958).
In Hammock v. Hammock, supra, the parties were granted a divorce. Custody of the three minor children was awarded by the court to the mother. She took them home with her. A few days later her former husband and his brother demanded possession of the children and when the mother refused to comply with their demand, they took the children from her without her consent and over her protest. This court held that since no injunction was granted which prohibited the former husband from depriving the former wife of the custody of the children which had been awarded to her, his act was not one which could be punished by contempt proceedings.
In effect, Hammock held that although there was an express command granting legal custody of a child to one parent, the courts of this state were powerless to enforce that command by contempt when the decree contained no express injunction prohibiting the other parent from stealing the child away from the custodial parent against her will.
" An order or judgment which merely declares the rights of the parties without any express command or prohibition is not one which may be the basis of contempt proceedings" for failure to comply therewith. Hammock v. Hammock, supra. However, two major exceptions to this rule already exist. Awards of alimony or child support are implicit commands of the court and are enforceable by action for contempt without language in terms of a command, since these are duties in which society has a substantial interest. Wilson v. Chumney, 214 Ga. 120, 103 S.E.2d 552 (1958); Robbins v. Robbins, 221 Ga. 627, 146 S.E.2d 628 (1966); Shepherd v. Shepherd, 223 Ga. 609, 611, 157 S.E.2d 268 (1967); Dozier v. Dozier, 229 Ga. 306, 307, 191 S.E.2d 57 (1972); McDonald v. McDonald, 232 Ga. 190, 191, 205 S.E.2d 850 (1974).
Recently this court in Matthews v. Matthews, 238 Ga. 201, 203, 232 S.E.2d 76 (1977), voiced their concern over the number of cases in which children are illegally seized or illegally detained at the end of visitation periods by their noncustodial parents. In keeping with the spirit of Matthews, we see no reason why alimony or child support awards should be enforced by contempt action where no specific command is included in the decree and child custody should not.
Our decisions in Hammock, Mote and Adams, have made the courts appear ineffectual and without the power to enforce their own decrees, and therefore we overrule them. The proper administration of justice demands that courts have the power to enforce their orders and decrees by contempt proceedings. Disobedience to the lawful order of a court is an obstruction of justice, and for such a violation the court, in order to compel respect or compliance, may punish for contempt. See, Code Ann. Secs. 24-104; 24-105. Bradley v. State, 111 Ga. 168, 36 S.E. 630 (1900).
With this the trial court's ruling in this regard must be reversed.
2. Appellant next enumerates as error the court's failure to find appellee in contempt of the final judgment and decree of divorce requiring the payment of child support. The basis for a contempt action is a "wilful" refusal to comply with a judgment or order of the court. Crowder v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. Floyd
...Woods v. Bradford, 288 Ga. 158, 160, 703 S.E.2d 319 (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Griggers v. Bryant, 239 Ga. 244, 245–246(1), 236 S.E.2d 599 (1977) (applying this principle to awards of child custody). When one party is responsible under a divorce decree for a cost wh......
-
Hall v. Nelson
...in the commands be clear and certain. Hughes v. Browne, 217 Ga.App. 567, 568(1), 459 S.E.2d 170 (1995). Compare Griggers v. Bryant, 239 Ga. 244(1), 236 S.E.2d 599 (1977) (contempt appropriate to enforce divorce decree containing clear, though implicit, command to pay alimony or child suppor......
-
Dyer v. Surratt
...of justice demands that courts have the power to enforce their orders and decrees by contempt proceedings." Griggers v. Bryant, 239 Ga. 244, 246, 236 S.E.2d 599 (1977). In so holding, we answer that which was pretermitted in Ashburn: the UCCJA does not provide the exclusive means by which a......
-
Beckham v. O'Brien
...or judgment. Gallit, supra, 240 Ga. at 626, 242 S.E.2d 89; Horton v. Horton, 222 Ga. 430, 150 S.E.2d 630 (1966). Griggers v. Bryant, 239 Ga. 244, 246(2), 236 S.E.2d 599 (1977), speaks of "a 'wilful' refusal to comply with a judgment or order of the court." However, a change of condition "su......