Roberson v. Roberson

• Decision Date: 09 February 1954
• Docket Number: No. 18458,18458
• Citation: Roberson v. Roberson, 210 Ga. 346, 80 S.E.2d 283 (Ga. 1954)
• Parties: ROBERSON v. ROBERSON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 283

80 S.E.2d 283

210 Ga. 346

ROBERSON v.ROBERSON.

No. 18458.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 9, 1954.

J. D. Godfrey, Casey Thigpen, Sandersville, for plaintiff in error.

Harold E. Ward, Dublin, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

ALMAND, Justice.

In a divorce action by Mrs. Bernice Dixon Roberson against Julian M. Roberson, a final decree was entered upon the verdict, granting a divorce between the parties and awarding the four minor children of the marriage to the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to pay as alimony for the support of his wife and children $20 per week 'until all of said children being [become] self-supporting.'On October 3, 1953, the mother brought a petition praying that the father be attached for contempt for the nonpayment of $35, which it was alleged the father had failed to pay according to the decree.In his response the father alleged that, several weeks after his son, one of the children named in the decree, had entered the military service, the father contacted his exwife's attorney and asked if he should continue to pay $20 per week, and was told that, since said child had become self-supporting, the father should only send $15 a week for the support of the remaining children, and the sum alleged to be in arrears represents $5 a week that had formerly been paid for the support of the son, which he was told ceased when the son became self-supporting.In his response the father asked the court to determine whether he should pay $20 per week or $15 per week.The mother filed a demurrer to the response, the grounds being that the response failed to set forth any defense to the contempt action, and that the court was without authority of law to change or modify the final judgment for alimony.On the trial of the rule, the only evidence introduced was an affidavit of the defendant, in which he alleged that he was a man of small means and unable to pay a large amount for the support of the children, that he had never missed a payment, and had reduced the amount of the payments in good faith upon his son entering the military service.The court entered an order adjudging the defendant as not being in contempt because of any arrears in the payment of alimony, and construing the alimony judgment to mean that the husband was required to pay the sum of $5 per week for the support of each child, and as each child became self-supporting the amount would be reduced to $5 per week for each of the remaining children.The court did not enter any formal order on the demurrer to the petition for contempt.By bill of exceptions the mother assigns error on the order refusing to adjudge the father to be in contempt, and on the court's construction of the final decree.Held:

1.After a verdict and decree in a proceeding for divorce and alimony, awarding alimony in a stated amount to the wife for the support of herself and the children the decree passes beyond the discretionary...