Mason v. Mason

Decision Date28 May 1974
Docket NumberNo. 28887,28887
CitationMason v. Mason, 206 S.E.2d 479, 232 Ga. 336 (Ga. 1974)
PartiesEvelyn Jane MASON v. Charles Howard MASON.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Dewberry & Avery, C. Richard Avery, Decatur, for appellant.

Heyman & Sizemore, Thomas H. Nickerson, William B. Brown, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

JORDAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from the trial court's order in a contempt action arising from a divorce decree.

Evelyn Mason, appellant herein, was divorced from appellee on August 11, 1971. A separation agreement was incorporated in the divorce decree, and said agreement provided that the appellee-husband was to pay his wife the sum of $308 per week until her remarriage.

Appellee became delinquent in his payments and on September 25, 1973, the appellant filed a contempt citation against her husband alleging an arrearage of $4,875. This action was later amended to show an alleged obligation in the amount of $7,475.

On December 31, 1970, prior to the divorce action, the appellee transferred ownership of the home in which they lived to appellant by a warranty deed. The home was sold by appellant in October, 1973, and appellee now alleges that he deserves a credit for the proceeds of the sale by way of a constructive trust as against his weekly alimony and child support obligations.

On February 6, 1974, the trial court issued an order holding that the issue of the constructive trust should be tried before a jury 'seeking a Special Verdict as to whether or not the conveyance of the home place to the wife was, in fact, the creation of a constructive trust for which the defendant should receive credit on the computation of any arrearage of alimony and child support.' It should be noted that the trial court made no finding on the question of appellee's ability to pay.

The appellant complains that the trial court erred in not finding appellee in wilful contempt of court, in not making a determination as to the amount of arrearage and in ordering that the question of the constructive trust be submitted to a jury before ruling on appellant's contempt citation. Held:

1. The deed to the house in question here was executed on December 31, 1970. The separation agreement was executed January 4, 1971, followed by the entering of the final divorce decree on August 11, 1971, said decree incorporating the separation agreement. Neither the separation agreement nor the decree makes reference to the house previously deeded to appellant. The transfer was made prior to the signing of the agreement and entering of the final...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
12 cases
  • Pryor v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1977
    ... ... 216, 215 S.E.2d 223 (1975); Berryhill v. State, 235 Ga. 549, 221 S.E.2d 185 (1975); Smith v. State, 236 Ga. 12, 222 S.E.2d 308 (1976); Mason v. State, 236 Ga. 46, 222 S.E.2d 339 (1976); Dobbs v. State, 236 Ga. 427, 224 S.E.2d 3 (1976); Coleman v. State, 237 Ga. 84, 226 S.E.2d 911 (1976); ... ...
  • Harden v. Harden
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1979
    ...the words "so long as financially able" have some meaning beyond what is involved in all contempt proceedings. Cf., Mason v. Mason, 232 Ga. 336, 337, 206 S.E.2d 479 (1974); Gillis v. Gillis, 243 Ga. 1, 252 S.E.2d 434 (1979). Furthermore, even if those words add nothing to the case that is n......
  • Portman v. Karsman
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1983
    ...issue to be heard is the husband's ability or inability to pay. McNeal v. McNeal, 233 Ga. 836, 213 S.E.2d 845 (1975); Mason v. Mason, 232 Ga. 336(1), 206 S.E.2d 479 (1974); Coleman v. Coleman, 205 Ga. 92, 93, 52 S.E.2d 438 (1949). The wife may avail herself of any civil process to collect t......
  • Berman v. Berman
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • September 6, 1977
    ...decree of which the DeKalb Superior Court has no jurisdiction since Dr. Berman is a Fulton County resident, citing Mason v. Mason, 232 Ga. 336, 206 S.E.2d 479 (1974); Anderson v. Anderson, 230 Ga. 885, 199 S.E.2d 800 (1973); Daniel v. Daniel, 216 Ga. 567, 118 S.E.2d 369 (1961). We do not Pa......
  • Get Started for Free