Holloman v. Holloman, 26650
| Decision Date | 08 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26650,26650 |
| Citation | 228 Ga. 246,184 S.E.2d 653 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Madelyn P. HOLLOMAN v. William Estese HOLLOMAN, Jr. |
Johnson & Johnson, S. D. Johnson, Jonesboro, for appellant.
E. H. Stanford, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
William E. Holloman, Jr., filed a complaint for divorce against Madelyn P Holloman in the Superior Court of Clayton County on the grounds of adultery and cruel treatment. He sought custody of their children, an injunction prohibiting her from interfering with his custody of them, and from disposing of certain property. Temporary custody of the children was awarded to him and the defendant was restrained as prayed. The defendant filed a cross complaint contending that she was driven from her home by the complainant, that she is entitled to a divorce on the grounds of cruel treatment and adultery, that she is entitled to custody of the children, alimony, and child support. The defendant filed a demand for jury trial on September 14, 1970. This demand was withdrawn on January 4, 1971. The defendant had also filed a demand for a jury trial on October 29, 1970, which was not withdrawn and is still pending. The defendant sought to compel the complainant to answer certain interrogatories. On failure of the complainant to answer the interrogatories, the defendant filed a motion to compel his response and to dismiss his petition. At the hearing of this motion the trial judge's order shows that the complainant did not respond to the motion and his complaint for divorce was dismissed on December 15, 1970.
On January 14, 1971, the trial court entered an order on the cross complaint of the defendant which granted her a divorce, custody of the children, child support and certain property.
On March 11, 1971, the defendant filed an application for contempt for nonpayment of child support.
On April 29, 1971, at the hearing of the petition for contempt, the trial court entered the following order: 'It appearing to the court that the jury demand filed September 14, 1970, in the above-styled case was withdrawn; however, the jury demand filed October 29, 1970, has not been withdrawn and is still pending, and it further appearing that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and lack of communication in the matter, it is therefore ordered that the judgment entered January 14, 1971, be and the same is hereby set aside, and the temporary order heretofore granted in said matter shall remain in full force and effect pending further order of the court.'
The defendant wife appeals from that order. Held:
1. The judgment of the trial court shows that the defendant wife testified in the hearing before the trial court when the divorce was granted. She, therefore, waived her demand for a jury trial. In Newton v. Newton, 226 Ga. 440, 175 S.E.2d 543 this court held: 'There is no provision in the laws of Georgia, either as to divorce or other civil proceedings that notice of the withdrawal of a jury demand by the plaintiff must be served on the defendant.' The same rule applies to the withdrawal of a demand for jury trial by the defendant.
2. The appellant contends that the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemcon U.S. Corp. v. Icon Tech. Consulting, Inc.
...term in which a decree is rendered, it is "in the breast of the judge; after it is over, it is upon the roll." Holloman v. Holloman, 228 Ga. 246, 248 (2), 184 S.E.2d 653 (1971). And the rule reflects "a balance between the need for finality of judicial decisions and the understanding that t......
-
Wise, Simpson, Aiken & Associates, Inc. v. Rosser White Hobbs Davidson McClellan Kelly, Inc.
...6(1), 148 S.E.2d 428. In this case, the filing of exceptions was timely and not at issue. 6. Rosser White, relying on Holloman v. Holloman, 228 Ga. 246, 184 S.E.2d 653, submits that even if a demand for jury trial was timely, WSA waived its demand by its actions. Rosser White's reliance is ......
-
C & S Nat. Bank v. Burden, 55165
...its judgment ended with the term in which it was rendered. City of Cornelia v. Gunter, 227 Ga. 464, 181 S.E.2d 489; Holloman v. Holloman, 228 Ga. 246(2), 184 S.E.2d 653; Ammons v. Bolick, 233 Ga. 324 at 325, 210 S.E.2d 796, supra. Accordingly, the court was without authority to change its 2......
-
Holcomb v. Trax, Inc.
...trial court to change its judgment during the term in which it is rendered is an inherent power unchanged by the CPA. Holloman v. Holloman, 228 Ga. 246, 184 S.E.2d 653; City of Cornelia v. Gunter, 227 Ga. 464, 181 S.E.2d 489; Martin v. General Motors Corp., 226 Ga. 860, 178 S.E.2d 183. Whil......