Newton v. Newton
| Decision Date | 26 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23455,23455 |
| Citation | 149 S.E.2d 128,222 Ga. 175 |
| Parties | Grace W. NEWTON v. E. Dewey NEWTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Allen & Edenfield, Charles H. Brown, Statesboro, for appellant.
T. Ross Sharpe, Lyons, Julian Cheney, Millen, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This action for attachment for contempt was brought by the plaintiff mother upon the defendant father's alleged refusal to pay school expenses of the parties' daughter based on a provision in the divorce decree which read: The father filed what is denominated a motion to dismiss the petition upon the grounds: that the child is more than 21 years of age and there is no law requiring a father to pay maintenance and support to a child after the child reaches the age of 21; that the jury verdict in the divorce proceeding provided that the father 'shall pay all debts directly associated with and related to the college education of his three daughters * * * with a minimum of four years each, if they so desire'; that the final decree is contradictory to such jury verdict.
Upon a hearing before the trial judge, the following judgment was entered: 'The court finds as a matter of law that the respondent husband father, E. Dewey Newton, is not in contempt of court and is, therefore, ordered discharged from such contempt proceedings.' The mother appeals from this judgment and specifies the same as error. Held:
1. The rule is well established that, 'where, during the pendency of a divorce and alimony suit, the parties enter into a written contract whereby they settle alimony rights, including support and maintenance for their minor children, and such contract is approved by the court and by agreement incorporated in and made a part of the final decree, it thus becomes and is an adjudication of that issue and enforceable as any other judgment or decree for alimony, including child support.' Fambrough v. Cannon, 221 Ga. 289(1), 144 S.E.2d 335. Estes v. Estes, 192 Ga. 94, 96, 14 S.E.2d 681; Wilson v. Chumney, 214 Ga. 120(1), 103 S.E.2d 552. However, here the agreement between the parties, while contained in the judgment, was never formally made a part of the judgment. There is no language indicating the recited agreement between the parties was fixed, approved, incorporated into or otherwise made the judgment of the court. Instead this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nash v. State
...below. Grinad v. State, 34 Ga. 270, hn. 1 (1866). See also Bridges v. State, 227 Ga. 24(2), 178 S.E.2d 861 (1970); Newton v. Newton, 222 Ga. 175, 149 S.E.2d 128 (1966); Jones v. State, 226 Ga.App. 608, 487 S.E.2d 89 (1997). We also recognize the well-established practice by our State courts......
-
Bettis v. State
...to the contrary appearing we presume that the trial judge had before him proof demonstrating [such finding]." Newton v. Newton, 222 Ga. 175, 176(2), 149 S.E.2d 128 (1966); see also Jones v. State, 226 Ga.App. 608, 487 S.E.2d 89 (1997); Waddy v. Scottish Rite Children's Med. Center, 221 Ga.A......
-
McClain v. McClain
...child. 2. Is the divorce decree in which the agreement of the parties was incorporated enforceable by contempt? In Newton v. Newton, 222 Ga. 175, 149 S.E.2d 128 (1966) this court had before it an action for contempt which was based on an agreement between the parties to a divorce action. Th......
-
Clavin v. Clavin, 31746
...A requirement to provide child support beyond the age of majority may not, as a matter of law, be imposed. See Newton v. Newton, 222 Ga. 175(2), 149 S.E.2d 128 (1966). The wife argues, relying on Golden, supra, 230 Ga. at 868, 199 S.E.2d 796, that the jury may, in its discretion, make "spec......