Moody v. Moody, 24404
| Decision Date | 04 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24404,24404 |
| Citation | 224 Ga. 13,159 S.E.2d 394 |
| Parties | Willis E. MOODY, Jr. v. Susan McAfee MOODY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the husband was guilty of cruel treatment of the wife and habitual intoxication, as charged in the petition.
2. The award of alimony to the wife and support for the children was not excessive.
3. It was not error to require the husband to pay, as a part of alimony, the mortgage notes on the home and automobile, which were awarded to the wife.
4. It was not error to require the husband to pay present and future medical and dental bills of the children, but was error to require payment of 'past' medical and dental bills, as they are not a part of alimony.
Noah J. Stone, Hugh W. Stone, atlanta, for appellant.
Westmoreland, Hall & O'Brien, John L. Westmoreland, Sr., P. Joseph McGee, Atlanta, for appellee.
The appeal is from a judgment overruling and denying the motion for new trial, as amended, of the husband to a final judgment and decree of the trial court awarding the wife a divorce, alimony for herself, and support for five minor children.
1. Enumeration of error 1 complains of the denial of the motion for new trial on the ground that the judgment and decree of the court is contrary to law and evidence, and without evidence to support it. This ground is without merit, as the evidence is ample to support the finding that the husband was guilty of cruel treatment as charged, and also of habitual intoxication. The wife testified that he was intoxicated every night he was at home during the last year they lived together, that he bought whiskey by the case and consumed large quantities, drinking three and more drinks before dinner, and would awake during the night and continue drinking. He was teaching at Georgia Tech and lived at home with his wife and children prior to and at the time of the separation. 'It is not, in order to prove 'habitual intoxication' on the part of the respondent in a libel for divorce, essential to show that he was constantly and continuously drunk.' Fuller v. Fuller, 108 Ga. 256(2), 33 S.E. 865. The evidence does not support the husband's contention that the wife was guilty of like conduct.
The kind of cruel treatment which is a ground for divorce is the wilful infliction of pain, bodily or mental, upon the complaining party, such as reasonably justifies an apprehension of danger to life, limb or health. Ewing v. Ewing, 211 Ga. 803(1), 89 S.E.2d 180; Code § 30-102(10). The wife testified that her husband mistreated her physically several times, on one occasion had hit her on the jaw, loosening a tooth which required dental care and prevented her from eating for several days; that he had made false accusations against her; that this conduct of her husband seriously affected her health, and that she lost 20 pounds during the last six months they lived together.
2. Enumeration of errors 2 and 3 complain that the award of alimony is excessive, oppressive, contrary to law and the evidence, and leaves the husband with nothing to live on. The court awarded the wife the husband's equity in the home and a Chevrolet automobile; alimony and child support totaling $475 per month; mortgage payments on the home, $217.32 per month; automobile note, $69 per month; tuition for retarded child, $51 per month; or a total of $812.32 per month, or $9,747.84 per year; and ordered payment of one daughter's tuition at Georgia Tech so long as she attended there until she reached 21 years of age.
The divorce action was filed in August, 1966. The husband's gross income in 1966 was $23,309.65, and in 1965, $19,541.44. His complaint is that his gross salary is $1,181.25 per month, with net of $817.78 per month, and that this is not adequate to pay the award. However, he neglects to include his income for work during the summer months and money received from grants, which, together with his salary by Georgia Tech, totaled about $2,000 per month in 1966, and he is doing the same work in 1967. The evidence supports the award and it clearly is not excessive.
3. The 4th and 5th enumeration of errors complain that the court erred in requiring the husband to pay the mortgage notes on the home until the wife dies or remarries, and on the automobile, on the ground that the awards are not supported by the pleadings or the evidence. The wife prayed for alimony; and, requiring the husband to pay, as a part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClain v. McClain
...of the case warrant it. Fitts v. Fitts, 231 Ga. 528, 202 S.E.2d 414; Bateman v. Bateman, 224 Ga. 20, 159 S.E.2d 387; Moody v. Moody, 224 Ga. 13, 159 S.E.2d 394. However, any such obligation imposed by the decree terminates when the child reaches majority or marries. E.g., Golden v. Golden, ......
-
Smith v. Smith, 31317
...(1973); Brock v. Brock, 228 Ga. 500, 186 S.E.2d 537 (1972); Dupree v. Dupree, 224 Ga. 52(2), 159 S.E.2d 708 (1968); Moody v. Moody, 224 Ga. 13(2), 159 S.E.2d 394 (1968). On the other side of the scale, an alimony award capturing almost all of the husband's income was held to be excessive. F......
-
Clavin v. Clavin, 31746
...but otherwise they are valid obligations. See McClain v. McClain, 235 Ga. 659, 660, 221 S.E.2d 561 (1975); and, Moody v. Moody, 224 Ga. 13, 15, 159 S.E.2d 394 (1968). In addition, we hold that since these costs can be ascertained, they are not unenforceable as being vague. Norrell v. Norrel......
-
Jenkins v. Jenkins, 29565
...of the case warrant it. Fitts v. Fitts, 231 Ga. 528, 202 S.E.2d 414; Bateman v. Bateman, 224 Ga. 20, 159 S.E.2d 387; Moody v. Moody, 224 Ga. 13, 159 S.E.2d 394. However, any such obligation imposed by the decree terminates when the child reaches majority or marries. E.g., Golden v. Golden, ......