Stewart v. Stewart, 21458
| Decision Date | 04 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 21458,21458 |
| Citation | 123 S.E.2d 547,217 Ga. 509 |
| Parties | Winburn E. STEWART v. Rose W. STEWART. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Frank C. Jones, Jones, Sparks, Benton & Cork, Macon, for plaintiff in error.
Miller, Miller & Miller, Wallace Miller, Jr., Macon, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Where, as in the case sub judice, a father in response to a citation for contempt of court, admits that he is financially able to pay alimony awarded by a previous decree for the support of his minor children, and alleges that he has wilfully refused to pay the alimony because the mother of the children has refused to permit him to exercise visitation rights with the children granted him by the decree, such response sets up no valid excuse for his failure to obey the mandate of the court, and is properly stricken. In such a situation, the trial judge does not err in holding the respondent in contempt. Jagoe v. Jagoe, 183 Ga. 273, 274, 187 S.E. 874; Taylor v. Taylor, 216 Ga. 767, 769, 119 S.E.2d 571; Phillips v. Phillips, 73 Ga.App. 18, 20, 35 S.E.2d 520.
2. The conclusion pronounced in the foregoing syllabus is particularly applicable in cases such as Jagoe v. Jagoe, supra, and the instant case, where the decree does not make the visitation rights of the father a condition precedent to the payment of alimony for the support of the children.
3. The fact that the decree is entered upon agreement of the parents, parties to a divorce suit, relative to the visitation rights of the father and the payment of alimony for the children does not render the violation of the terms of the contract by either of the parties a valid excuse by the other for disobeying the directions of the decree. As is held in Fortson v. Fortson, 195 Ga. 750, 754, 25 S.E.2d 518, 522: 'While the original decree as to custody was based upon an agreement between the parties, it was none the less a judgment of the court, having the usual attribute of conclusiveness.'
4. The case of Tillinghast v. Clay, 152 Ga. 816, 111 S.E. 384, cited in the brief of counsel for the defendant, is sound in principle, but the principles announced are not applicable to the case we now review. The Tillinghast case deals primarily with the right of a respondent to enjoin a contempt proceeding. The opinion in the case, without intimating what conduct on the part of the minor children's mother might serve to relieve the father of his obligation to pay alimony for their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin v. Ledbetter
...Georgia law requires that the custodial parent spend child support monies for the benefit of the child. Id; see also Stewart v. Stewart, 217 Ga. 509, 123 S.E.2d 547 (1962). That is, the custodial parent acts as trustee of the child support monies for the child as beneficiary. Having determi......
-
Williams v. Martin
...child support. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources ex rel. Holland v. Holland, 263 Ga. 885, 886, 440 S.E.2d 9 (1994); Stewart v. Stewart, 217 Ga. 509, 510, 123 S.E.2d 547 (1962). However, as this right may be modified by parental election or by law, it similarly does not give the child a veste......
-
Hamrick v. Seward, 46898
...in exercising his visitation rights. In re Merrill (La.App.), 246 So.2d 207; In re Genin (La.App.), 240 So.2d 46. Cf. Stewart v. Stewart, 217 Ga. 509, 123 S.E.2d 547; Jagoe v. Jagoe, 183 Ga. 273, 274, 187 S.E. 874. '(N)o natural parent, regardless of the difficulties he may be experiencing ......
-
Department of Human Resources v. Chambers, A93A2087
...trust imposed on her to see that court ordered child support is applied solely for the benefit of her children. Stewart v. Stewart, 217 Ga. 509, 510, 123 S.E.2d 547 (1962); Law Office of Tony Center v. Baker, 185 Ga.App. 809, 810, 366 S.E.2d 167 (1988). Nevertheless, Ms. Chambers argues tha......