McDonald v. McDonald, 29423
| Decision Date | 11 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29423,29423 |
| Citation | 214 S.E.2d 493,234 Ga. 37 |
| Parties | Lawrence P. McDONALD v. Anna T. McDONALD. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Flournoy & Still, Richard H. Still, Jr., Frank W. Virgin, Marietta, George G. Finch, Atlanta, for appellant.
Jack P. Turner, Atlanta, Raymond M. Reed, Marietta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Mrs. Anna T. McDonald filed contempt proceedings against her former husband, Dr. Lawrence P. McDonald, for failure to make certain payments required by their divorce decree. By order entered December 17, 1973, the trial judge found him in wilful contempt and ordered him incarcerated but provided, 'such incarceration is suspended upon the conditions stated in this Order.' The conditions complained of here are stated in the order as commands and provided in substance that (1) appellant spend his full time practicing medicine so that he can make the payments required by the divorce decree, (2) appellant take no out of town trips without approval of the court, and (3) all litigation between the parties be enjoined.
1. 'The only issue at the hearing of a rule for contempt on account of a failure to pay the temporary alimony awarded is the ability or inability of the husband to make the delinquent payments.' Coleman v. Coleman, 205 Ga. 92, 93, 52 S.E.2d 438, 439. The trial judge found the appellant in wilful contempt and that finding is not attacked. The attack is upon the conditions specified under which the appellant could purge the contempt. A trial judge is authorized to provide a reasonable method of discharging the contempt. See Roberts v. Roberts, 229 Ga. 689, 691, 194 S.E.2d 100. A reading of an order of March 20, 1974, signed April 12, 1974, in our opinion, amends the order of December 17, 1973, attacked here, and deletes the commands that appellant practice medicine and take no out of town trips without approval of the court. It is clear to us that the court in the amended order merely decreed that the appellant was capable of earning sufficient income as a medical doctor to pay the sums required by the divorce decree; and that the court would not alter its finding that appellant was able to pay, or purge the past contempt, if he deliberately changed his occupation and reduced his earnings so as to become incapable of making such payments. We do not construe the amended order as commanding the appellant to practice medicine. We construe it as a condition by which the appellant could purge himself of a past contempt. Under the facts of this case it is not an unreasonable condition. See Johnson v. Johnson, 131 Ga. 606, 608, 62 S.E. 1044; Boyett v. Boyett, 192 Ga. 604, 15 S.E.2d 871; Arnold v. Arnold, 195 Ga. 304, 24 S.E.2d 12. On the contrary it is apparent from the record that the trial judge was attempting to fashion reasonable conditions for a purge of the contempt in order to avoid incarcerating a man he described as 'most highly respected . . . in his field and in his medical career . . . not a blemish on his record . . . of great ability and great honor in his profession.' We find no denial of rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as contended by appellant.
2. The trial court erred in enjoining the parties from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Robinson
...“maintenance” payments are included. Dubois, supra at 272, 297 S.E.2d 277. However, a contrary result was reached in McDonald v. McDonald, 234 Ga. 37, 214 S.E.2d 493 (1975). In that case, the husband argued that, as to the payments he was required to make under the divorce decree, he should......
-
Norman v. Ault, S10F0874.
...an appeal from the final judgment of divorce. Dubois v. Dubois, 250 Ga. 271, 272, 297 S.E.2d 277 (1982). But see McDonald v. McDonald, 234 Ga. 37, 38(3), 214 S.E.2d 493 (1975). However, even assuming that Norman is correct with respect to temporary alimony paid while the final divorce decre......
-
Griggers v. Bryant, 31999
...refusal to comply with a judgment or order of the court. Crowder v. Crowder, 236 Ga. 612, 225 S.E.2d 16 (1976); McDonald v. McDonald, 234 Ga. 37, 214 S.E.2d 493 (1975); Crozier v. Crozier, 231 Ga. 486, 202 S.E.2d 412 (1973). In reading the transcript of this case, it is clear that there was......
-
Grissom v. Grissom
...be treated as final so long as either party has the right to have it reviewed by the Supreme Court. [Cit.]'" McDonald v. McDonald, 234 Ga. 37, 39(3), 214 S.E.2d 493 (1975). Thus, although any Georgia ex-spouse who appeals only a portion of a divorce decree must decline to accept and retain ......