Nelson v. Roberts, 21190
| Decision Date | 06 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 21190,21190 |
| Citation | 216 Ga. 741,119 S.E.2d 545 |
| Parties | Joan S. NELSON, formerly Roberts, v. James E. ROBERTS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Lanier Randall, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
J. Willard Register, Columbus, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This litigation was instituted by the plaintiff against her divorced husband, to revise a judgment fixing permanent alimony or support for their two minor children. So far as need be stated, her petition alleges: She sued the defendant in Muscogee County for divorce and alimony, including support for their two minor children and, while such suit was pending, they entered into a written agreement by the terms of which she was to have and retain custody of their children; that he would pay her $15 per week for their support and maintenance until they reached the age of 18 years, married or became selfsupporting, whichever event occurred first; and that such agreement would be made a part of the final judgment in her pending suit against him for divorce and alimony. A judgment granting a divorce was signed on February 7, 1955, and their agreement respecting custody and support of the children was by reference thereto made a part of such judgment. When such judgment was signed, the defendant's income was approximately $5,000 per year, but since then it has materially increased and presently amounts to approximately $10,000 per year, and in the meantime he has acquired and now owns an equitable interest in certain real estate of substantial value. She prayed that the judgment fixing the amount of support for their minor children be revised so as to require him to pay her a stated and larger amount each month for their support and maintenance. The court sustained a general demurrer to the petition and dismissed it. The exception is to that judgment. Held:
1. While the divorce and childsupport judgment in this case was signed on February 7, 1955, it did not, under the provisions of an act which the legislature passed in 1946 (Ga.L.1946, pp. 90, 91; Code, Ann., Supp. § 30-101), become of 'full force and effect' until 30 full days thereafter, or until March 9, 1955, had fully ended; until then it was not a final judgment. See Dugas v. Dugas, 201 Ga. 190, 194, 39 S.E.2d 658; Allison v. Allison, 204 Ga. 202, 48 S.E.2d 723; Huguley v. Huguley, 204 Ga. 692, 51 S.E.2d 445; Neal v. Neal, 209 Ga. 199, 71 S.E.2d 229; and Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 211 Ga. 310, 85 S.E.2d 756, where this court, on request therefor, refused to review and overrule the Dugas, Huguley, and similar cases. Section 1 of an act which the Governor approved on March 9, 1955 (Ga.L.1955, p. 630; Code Ann.Supp. § 30-220), provides in part: 'The judgment of a court providing permanent alimony for the support of a wife or child or children, or both, shall be subject to revision upon petition filed by either the husband or the wife showing a change in the income and financial status of the husband.' And since such alimony-revising act became effective on the day of its approval by the Governor (Floyd County v. Salmon, 151 Ga. 313, 315, 106 S.E. 280), there is clearly no merit in the contention here made that an application of it to the judgment involved in this case, which became of full force and effect at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hemphill v. Hemphill
...Lines, Inc. v. United States, 470 F.2d 487 (5th Cir. 1972); Fambrough v. Cannon, 221 Ga. 289, 144 S.E.2d 335 (1965); Nelson v. Roberts, 216 Ga. 741, 119 S.E.2d 545 (1961). The Fifth Circuit noted in United States Lines, Inc. that a consent judgment has the same effect under Georgia law as a......
-
NEVAREZ v. NEVAREZ
...due process or equal protection strictures. See A.S. v. District of Columbia, 593 A.2d 646, 648 (D.C. 1991); Nelson v. Roberts, 216 Ga. 741, 119 S.E.2d 545, 546 (1961). As noted by the trial judge, R.M.N., supra, 119 Daily Wash.L.Rptr. at 1991 n. 13, a child support order which is subject t......
-
Grizzard v. Grizzard, 24424
...on a jury's verdict or the court's finding from evidence insofar as revision of it under the act of 1955 is concerned.' Nelson v. Roberts, 216 Ga. 741(2), 119 S.E.2d 545. See also Dalon v. Dalon, 219 Ga. 185, 186, 132 S.E.2d 195. The contract contained the stipulation that the appellant 'do......
-
Bugden v. Bugden, 25231
...defendant to pay the plaintiff each month.' See also Gallant v. Gallant, 223 Ga. 397(3), 156 S.E.2d 61. This court in Nelson v. Roberts, 216 Ga. 741(2), 119 S.E.2d 545, held that the 1955 Act did not offend the provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions (Code Ann. §§ 2-302, 1-134) wh......