Langley v. Langley

• Decision Date: 23 May 2005
• Docket Number: No. S05F0565.,S05F0565.
• Citation: Langley v. Langley, 613 S.E.2d 614, 279 Ga. 374 (Ga. 2005)
• Parties: LANGLEY v. LANGLEY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

279 Ga. 374

613 S.E.2d 614

LANGLEY v.LANGLEY.

No. S05F0565.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 23, 2005.

Robert A. Moss, Moss & Rothenberg, Atlanta, for Appellant.

Michael J. Kramer, Marietta, for Appellee.

HINES, Justice.

The central issue in this appeal from the final judgment and decree of divorce between the parties and the denial of a motion for new trial is compliance with an antenuptial agreement.For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the superior court erred in finding in the final judgment and decree of divorce that there was compliance with a certain provision in the antenuptial agreement regarding the payment of lump sum alimony.Nancy and Robert Langley were married on July 4, 1999.The parties entered into an antenuptial agreement which provided, inter alia, that should the marriage dissolve, Mr. Langley would pay Ms. Langley $25,000 as lump sum alimony, with each party waiving any and all rights to seek other alimony.¹The agreement further specified that all gifted property was to become the separate property of the transferee.Mr. Langley filed and subsequently dismissed three complaints for divorce against Ms. Langley.Ms. Langley filed the present complaint for divorce in August 2003.Following a bench trial in March, 2004, the superior court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce between the parties on April 6, 2004; the final judgment and decree of divorce provided that the agreement remained in full force and effect and was incorporated by reference.The superior court specifically found that the $25,000 lump sum alimony to which Ms. Langley was entitled under the agreement had been paid by Mr. Langley in the form of temporary alimony and attorney fees.Ms. Langley's motion for new trial was denied.

1.Ms. Langley contends that the superior court erred in failing to enforce the antenuptial agreement ("agreement") by finding that Mr. Langley's obligation to pay $25,000 in lump sum alimony had been met by his previous payments of temporary alimony and attorney fees.We agree.Mr. Langley was not entitled to an offset for these prior payments.

It is certainly true, as Mr. Langley asserts, that the payment of attorney fees and expenses of litigation are part of temporary alimony.Scott v. Scott,251 Ga. 619, 620(3), 308 S.E.2d 177(1983).It is also the case, as Mr. Langley urges, that lump sum alimony "may be payable at once, or payable in periodic installments, or . . . may be a requirement that one spouse fulfill stated obligations to a third party for the benefit of the other spouse."Stone v. Stone,254 Ga. 519, 520(2), 330 S.E.2d 887(1985).See alsoWinokur v. Winokur,258 Ga. 88, 90(1), 365 S.E.2d 94(1988).So the question becomes whether Mr. Langley's payment of periodic support and attorney fees as a part of temporary alimony can satisfy his lump sum alimony obligation pursuant to the agreement.

The very nature of temporary alimony militates against the offset of such amounts.A provision for temporary alimony is different in character and purpose from an award of permanent alimony because it is intended to meet the exigencies arising out of the domestic crisis of a pending proceeding for divorce; it takes into account the peculiar necessities of the spouse at that time and provides the means by which that spouse may contest the issues in the divorce action.Coleman v. Coleman,240 Ga. 417, 420(2), 240 S.E.2d 870(1977);see alsoScott v. Scott,supra at 620(3), 308 S.E.2d 177.In fact, this Court has determined that a spouse is not entitled to credit against permanent alimony for payments made by that spouse pursuant to a temporary order while the final judgment of divorce is pending appeal.McDonald v. McDonald,234 Ga. 37, 39(3), 214 S.E.2d 493(1975).

The Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida addressed a situation much like the present in Urbanek v. Urbanek,484 So.2d 597(1986).In that case, there was great disparity in the net worth of the husband (approximately $25,000,000 to $30,000,000) and the wife ($36, 000), and just prior to the marriage, the parties entered into an antenuptial agreement, which was the focus of the principal issues on appeal.Id. at 598.Under the Urbaneks' agreement, the dissolution of their four-year marriage would entitle the wife to a lump sum payment of $250,000.The agreement, unlike the one in the present case, also expressly provided that the wife agreed that any payments made to her by her husband for temporary alimony or other temporary support except child support, including attorney fees, were required to be offset against those sums to be paid by the husband in the permanent lump sum award.In a postjudgment order, the trial court determined that the offset provision was unenforceable, and directed the husband to pay the $250,000 lump sum amount without offsets for his former payments of his wife's attorney fees and temporary alimony.Id. at 601.The appellate court concluded that the trial court correctly decided the issue and that the offset provision was void ab initio because:

[a] rule that permitted the husband to offset temporary support and attorney's fees against an agreed-upon lump sum could well place the wife in the untenable...