Leachmon v. Leachmon
| Decision Date | 07 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 32533,32533 |
| Citation | 239 Ga. 780,238 S.E.2d 863 |
| Parties | Jesse J. LEACHMON v. Marion J. LEACHMON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Hirsch Friedman, Atlanta, for appellant.
Fredericks, Jones & Wilbur, Jimmy W. Jones, Marietta, for appellee.
Appellant, Jesse Leachmon, appeals from a judgment of divorce and the award of real estate and an automobile to his wife.
1. The appellant complains that the trial court erred in striking his demand for trial by jury and granting a divorce to the appellee on the pleadings. We disagree. The appellee petitioned for divorce from the appellant on grounds that the bonds of marriage have been irretrievably broken as defined in Code Ann. § 30-102(13). The appellant counterclaimed for divorce on grounds of willful and continued desertion for the term of one year as defined in Code Ann. § 30-102(7). The trial court was correct in granting a divorce on the pleadings and striking the appellant's demand for trial by jury. Dickson v. Dickson, 238 Ga. 672, 235 S.E.2d 479 (1977).
2. The parties were married in 1956. In 1972 the appellant conveyed the disputed real estate and automobile to his wife in an attempt to affect a reconciliation.
The undisputed evidence was that he was sober at the time of the transfers. However, he contends that he was incompetent because his brain had been damaged by habitual intoxication. It is well settled that in order to avoid a deed on the ground of mental incapacity of the grantor, he must have been non compos mentis, that is entirely without understanding at the time the deed was executed. Williams v. Williams, 223 Ga. 374, 375, 155 S.E.2d 383 (1967); Thomas v. Lockwood, 198 Ga. 437(1), 31 S.E.2d 791 (1944). Where the evidence relied on to show mental weakness of the grantor arising from intoxication shows that the grantor had periods of sobriety in which he was able to conduct business, and fails to show that he was intoxicated at the time the conveyance was made, it is not sufficient to avoid the transaction, although it appears that the grantor was a hard drinker, and that habit of intoxication had affected his health, and frequently rendered him unfit for business. Ralston v. Turpin, 25 F. 7, affirmed 129 U.S. 663, 9 S.Ct. 420, 32 L.Ed. 747 (1885); 38 Am.Jur.2d, Gifts, § 12. Appellant's contention is without merit.
The automobile was a valid gift under Code Ann. § 48-101 and Code Ann. § 108-116. Scales v. Scales, 235 Ga. 509, 220...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Garrett
...she was "non compos mentis, that is entirely without understanding at the time the deed was executed. [Cits.]" Leachmon v. Leachmon, 239 Ga. 780(2), 238 S.E.2d 863 (1977). There was opinion evidence that appellant's recent surgery, coupled with her continuing medication, could have had a de......
-
Watkins v. Davis, 58820
...198 Ga. 437, 445(1), 31 S.E.2d 791; Higgins v. Trentham, 186 Ga. 264(2), 267-268, 197 S.E. 862; and more recently Leachmon v. Leachmon, 239 Ga. 780(2), 238 S.E.2d 863. The defendants contend that the language of the charge in question is inconsistent with the holding of our Supreme Court in......
-
Hansford v. Robinson
...mental incapacity if the grantor is shown to be entirely without understanding of the deed at the time of execution. Leachmon v. Leachmon, 239 Ga. 780, 238 S.E.2d 863 (1977). Thus, in order to prevail on her motion, the burden was on Robinson to show no genuine issue of fact existed as to h......
-
Bryan v. Bryan, 33803
...pleadings, and to submit the issue of divorce to the jury. Dickson v. Dickson, 238 Ga. 672, 235 S.E.2d 479 (1977); Leachmon v. Leachmon, 239 Ga. 780, 238 S.E.2d 863 (1977). However, appellant has failed to show any harm which resulted. The trial court, in its judgment entered on the verdict......