Hamilton v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 19 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. S12A1526.,S12A1526. |
| Citation | 292 Ga. 81,734 S.E.2d 355 |
| Parties | HAMILTON v. HAMILTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Vic Brown Hill, Brad Elliott Macdonald, Hill–Macdonald, LLC, Marietta, for appellant.
Susan Michele Brown, The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown P.C., Peachtree City, for appellee.
Patrick Joseph Fox, McNally, Fox, Grant & Davenport, P.C., Fayetteville, for other party.
Robert Hamilton (husband) and Janell Hamilton (wife) were divorced in 2008, after approximately 23 years of marriage. At the time of their divorce, they had one minor child. The final divorce decree ordered husband to pay, in addition to other alimony to wife, the sum of $6,000 per month
[b]eginning June 1, 2009 and continuing until May 31, 2013, provided the child is enrolled in a full time course of study at an accredited higher education institution.... If the child is not enrolled in good standing in a full time course of study at an accredited higher education institution as described above, then upon the first month following the child not being enrolled, husband shall pay to wife the sum of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) per month, until May 31, 2013.
The decree further required wife to immediately inform husband of any change in the child's enrollment status which could trigger a change in husband's alimony obligation. In the event wife knowingly failed to inform husband of a change in status and husband overpaid, the overpayment was fully reimbursable to husband plus a ten percent interest penalty.
The child attended Georgia Southern University beginning in Fall 2009. In his first three semesters, he earned grade point averages of 1.0, 0.40, and 1.3. After struggling academically at Georgia Southern, the child enrolled at Jefferson State University for the Spring 2011 semester where he achieved a 4.0 grade point average. Husband paid $6,000 per month in alimony to wife through January 2011. In February 2011, after learning of the change in schools, husband reduced his alimony payments to $4,000 per month and simultaneously filed a petition to hold wife in contempt of the final decree arguing she failed to notify him that the child had lost “good standing” at Georgia Southern University.1
The trial court concluded wife was not in contempt of the final decree; but construing the decree, the trial court determined husband's alimony obligation for the 13–month period from January 2010 through May 2011 was $4,000 per month, resulting in a $26,000 overpayment to wife. The trial court further concluded, however, that the child regained his status as a full-time student in good standing in June 2011, thereby reinstating husband's $6,000 per month alimony obligation for June through October 2011. Because husband paid only $4,000 per month in those five months, the court held husband owed wife a deficiency of $10,000. Deducting the amount husband owed wife from the amount he was owed for his overpayment, the trial court relieved husband from paying alimony to wife until the $16,000 balance was paid. Husband's request for attorney fees and his request for an interest penalty on the overpayment were denied. We granted husband's application for discretionary appeal and for the reasons that follow, we affirm.
1. Husband argues the trial court improperly modified the final divorce decree by reinstating alimony payments of $6,000 per month after the child regained good standing in June 2011. A trial court lacks authority to modify the terms of a divorce decree in a contempt proceeding. Morgan v. Morgan, 288 Ga. 417, 419, 704 S.E.2d 764 (2011). A trial court is authorized, however, to interpret or clarify a divorce decree in the course of resolving contempt issues properly before it. Killingsworth v. Killingsworth, 286 Ga. 234, 236, 686 S.E.2d 640 (2009). The test for determining whether a trial court's ruling constitutes a proper clarification or impermissible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sears v. State
-
State v. Wood
...complied with and its determination will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” Hamilton v. Hamilton , 292 Ga. 81, 82, 734 S.E.2d 355 (2012). At the hearing on Wood's motion, the State generally raised this argument, although it did not specifically point the......
-
Mims v. Mims
...the terms of a divorce decree in a contempt proceeding, but is authorized to interpret or clarify the decree. See Hamilton v. Hamilton, 292 Ga. 81, 82(1), 734 S.E.2d 355 (2012). The test for distinguishing whether a trial court's ruling clarifies, rather than impermissibly modifies, a divor......
-
Doritis v. Doritis
...final decree, and entered an order enforcing the decree, which it clearly was authorized to do. See OCGA § 23–4–31; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 292 Ga. 81(1), 734 S.E.2d 355 (2012); Hudson v. Hudson, 220 Ga. 730, 141 S.E.2d 453 (1965). Contrary to husband's argument, it does not matter that the c......