Mcdonald v. Mcdonald.
| Decision Date | 13 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. S11F0112.,S11F0112. |
| Citation | 289 Ga. 387,711 S.E.2d 679 |
| Parties | MCDONALDv.MCDONALD. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Barbara Nelson Lanier, Savannah, for appellant.Frankie McDonald, Pooler, for appellee.NAHMIAS, Justice.
Pursuant to this Court's pilot project for divorce cases, we granted Jeffery McDonald's application for discretionary appeal of the parties' final judgment of divorce and of an order, entered on the same day, which he claims held him in contempt of a temporary order. We affirm.
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's rulings, the evidence showed as follows. On January 22, 2009, Frankie McDonald (Wife) filed for divorce from her husband of eight years, Jeffery McDonald (Husband). The parties had no children together, and most of the marital debt was discharged in bankruptcy prior to the parties' separation in 2008. Wife was disabled and had a pending slip and fall claim against Best Buy. On April 9, 2009, the trial court entered a temporary order that awarded Wife exclusive possession of the marital residence and required Husband to pay the monthly mortgage of $1,953.17 as temporary alimony.
On July 20, 2009, Husband was notified that he would be laid off from his job on or about October 30. On August 22, 2009, Husband broke his ankle while vacationing and later filed a personal injury lawsuit. Husband went on short-term disability leave and stopped making temporary alimony payments. On October 7, 2009, Husband filed a petition to modify the temporary order. On October 16, Wife filed a pro se petition for contempt for Husband's failure to make the temporary alimony payments starting in September 2009.
On March 29, 2010, after a bench trial, the court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce. Both parties had testified that there was no equity in the marital residence, and the court found that the couple had more liabilities than assets. Wife was awarded the marital residence, with responsibility for all future mortgage payments, two vehicles, the proceeds of her personal injury claim, and all household furnishings except those in Husband's possession and some items Husband listed at trial. Husband was awarded one vehicle, with responsibility for the associated loan payments, any remaining interest in his two 401(k) plans, the proceeds of his personal injury claim, the household furnishings in his possession, and most of the items on the list he submitted at trial. The court assigned Wife 45% and Husband 55% of the remaining $8,000 in marital debt. The court rejected Wife's request that Husband pay her $25,000 alimony in monthly installments of $50 for the next 42 years. The court did, however, order Husband to pay alimony in the form of keeping Wife on his health insurance for the next 24 months and making her car payment for the next 12 months.
Also on March 29, 2010, the trial court entered an order on Wife's contempt petition. At trial, Husband admitted that he failed to make the temporary alimony payments but claimed that his actions were not willful because he lacked the ability to pay due to his short-term disability and job loss. The court agreed and declined to hold Husband in contempt, although the court also established the amount of the arrearage as $11,710.02.
Husband filed an application for discretionary appeal, and Wife did not file a response. We granted the application under the pilot project, see Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133, 133, 587 S.E.2d 600 (2003), and Husband filed a timely notice of appeal. Although Husband filed his appellant's brief, Wife did not file an appellee's brief.
2. Husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding Wife alimony because she failed to show a need for alimony, he had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Gibson, S17F0593
...judgments, and will not set aside the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. McDonald v. McDonald , 289 Ga. 387, 387 (1), 711 S.E.2d 679 (2011) ; Bloomfield v. Bloomfield , 282 Ga. 108, 108, 646 S.E.2d 207 (2007). "It is a question of law for the court whether a p......
-
Manuel v. the State.
...to grant new trials which is not granted to appellate courts. See Colzie v. State, 289 Ga. 120, 121(1), 710 S.E.2d 115 (2011). [711 S.E.2d 679] Therefore, the trial court, in its order on the motion for new trial, “failed to apply the proper standard in assessing the weight of the evidence ......
-
VanVlerah v. VanVlerah
...Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction in Case No. A21A0700. Gobeil and Markle, JJ., concur.1 See McDonald v. McDonald , 289 Ga. 387, 387 (1), 711 S.E.2d 679 (2011).2 The husband, like the wife, was from Michigan.3 It is true that OCGA § 19-9-3 (a) (8) provides that upon request ......
- White v. State