Harris v. Harris, 57477
Decision Date | 08 May 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 57477,57477 |
Citation | 256 S.E.2d 86,149 Ga.App. 842 |
Parties | HARRIS v. HARRIS. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Clarence L. Leathers, Jr., J. W. Claxton, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Ferguson & Todd, Monroe Ferguson, Jonesboro, for appellee.
Jack Harris brought this action against his divorced wife Joann M. Harris for a debt of $1,674.65 plus interest, alleging that he had advanced this sum while the parties were married as funeral expenses for defendant's mother in consideration of her promise to repay the amount and that she refused to do so. The defendant pleaded res judicata, contending that Jack Harris had a duty to file any claims he had against his wife in the divorce action, that he failed to do so and that the present action comes too late. The trial court sustained the plea and plaintiff appeals.
1. The appellee here relies on Code § 110-501 ( ) providing that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is, as between the parties, conclusive of all matters put in issue. The appellant relies on Code § 81A-113(a)(b) distinguishing between compulsory and permissive counterclaims. The former must arise "out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject-matter of the opposing party's claim" whereas the latter may be any claim not arising out of the transaction or occurrence which one party has against the other. The words "arising out of" suggest a causal connection between the transaction and the injury suffered. Wood v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 116 Ga.App. 284, 290, 157 S.E.2d 60 (1947). If the marriage were the Cause of the loss, the loss might be said to arise out of the marriage, but not otherwise. Or, if the issue had been in fact litigated (as in Prince v Prince, 147 Ga.App. 686, 250 S.E.2d 21 (1978), where a settlement agreement as to all matters of division of property necessarily included a joint household bank account) it could not be raised in subsequent litigation.
Neither situation obtains here. The pleadings in the divorce case, which are attached to the answer, show no property schedule, no settlement between the parties, and no allegation or prayers for relief relating to this alleged debt, nor is the debt mentioned in the divorce decree. A husband and wife may contract with each other while married, and may even litigate with each other where the cause of action involves a property right. It is thus obvious that the advance here was not necessary to be litigated in the divorce action, nor does it appear that it was in fact litigated. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brookins v. Brookins, 44481
...parties were not bound under the principles of res judicata in subsequent litigation with respect to such property [Harris v. Harris, 149 Ga.App. 842 (256 SE2d 86) (1979); Sparks v. Sparks, 127 Ga.App. 657, 659 (194 SE2d 621) (1972); Thompson v. Reese, 105 Ga.App. 826, 827 (125 SE2d 726) (1......
-
Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld
...fiduciary duties owed her when he cut her off from the corporation and alone used corporate funds to pay his personal expenses. See Harris v. Harris1 (spouses seeking divorce may bring separate action asserting commercial claims against each other). Asserting the leasing operation was an eq......
-
Slansky v. Slansky
...1033 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (divorce not res judicata as to action on promissory note executed during marriage); Harris v. Harris, 149 Ga.App. 842, 843, 256 S.E.2d 86, 87 (1979) (action on debt accrued during marriage not barred by res judicata where issue was not litigated in divorce actio......
- Bradford v. State