Wood v. Wood

• Decision Date: 08 January 2008
• Docket Number: No. S07F1474.,S07F1474.
• Citation: Wood v. Wood, 655 S.E.2d 611, 283 Ga. 8 (Ga. 2008)
• Parties: WOOD v. WOOD.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

283 Ga. 8

655 S.E.2d 611

WOOD v.WOOD.

No. S07F1474.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

January 8, 2008.

Earle Johnston Duncan III, Pembroke, for Appellant.

Joseph D. McGovern, Dubberly & McGovern, Glennville, for Appellee.

MELTON, Justice.

Following a bench trial, Robert Allen Wood(Husband) and Diantha Wilkes Wood(Wife) were divorced for a second time pursuant to a final judgment and decree entered on July 26, 2006.¹Pursuant to this Court's pilot project for domestic cases,² Husband now appeals, contending, among other things, that the trial court erred in its division of marital property and its calculation of alimony and child support.We affirm.

"In the appellate review of a bench trial, this Court will not set aside the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and this Court properly gives due deference to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses."(Citations and punctuation omitted.)Frazier v. Frazier,280 Ga. 687, 690(4), 631 S.E.2d 666(2006).

1.Husband contends that the trial court erred in its lump sum award of alimony to Wife in the amount of $50,000, arguing both that the award was disproportionate and that it was granted in lump sum form for inappropriate reasons.

(a) Husband argues that, in granting alimony to Wife, the trial court failed to properly consider Wife's need for alimony and Husband's ability to pay.

In the absence of any mathematical formula, fact-finders are given a wide latitude in fixing the amount of alimony and child support, and to this end they are to use their experience as enlightened persons in judging the amount necessary for support under the evidence as disclosed by the record and all the facts and circumstances of the case.

( Citations and punctuation omitted.)Farrish v. Farrish,279 Ga. 551, 552, 615 S.E.2d 510(2005)."With respect to alimony, there is no statutory requirement that findings be included in the decree."(Citation omitted.)Smelser v. Smelser,280 Ga. 92, 94(2), 623 S.E.2d 480(2005).

OCGA § 19-6-5(a) instructs the factfinder to consider a number of factors in determining the appropriate amount of alimony in addition to any other factors deemed equitable and proper.³A review of the bench trial transcript in this case shows that, prior to awarding alimony, the trial court considered extensive testimony regarding all of the relevant factors set forth in OCGA § 19-6-5(a), including both parties' employment, assets, debts, income streams, and potential for future earnings.⁴Based on the record, it cannot be maintained that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors set forth under OCGA § 19-6-5.

Nonetheless, Husband complains that the trial court disregarded his version of the facts in calculating the alimony award and asks this Court to reconsider the facts of this case on appeal.Specifically, Husband argues that the trial court improperly imputed income to him of $60,000 in contravention of his testimony that any profits from a land clearing business he owned had recently diminished.This Court, however, does not reweigh facts.Giving the appropriate deference to the trial court's findings of fact and its credibility determinations, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion, as the income level attributed to Husband was well within the range of evidence provided to the trial court.

(b) Husband, who has filed for bankruptcy a number of times in the past, contends that the trial court erred by awarding lump sum alimony solely for the purpose of preventing him from discharging the alimony debt in a future bankruptcy proceeding.The trial court's order, however, does not support Husband's contention, as it does not state any such reasoning for the award of lump sum alimony.The trial court heard extensive evidence in this case, and after doing so, determined that lump sum alimony was appropriate.The trial court did not abuse its discretion.

2.Husband argues that the trial court erred in its determination that a home located at 390 Church Street in Tatnall County was Wife's separate property and not subject to equitable division.In general, the question whether "a particular item of property actually is a marital or non-marital asset may be a question of fact for the trier of fact."(Citation omitted.)Payson v. Payson,274 Ga. 231, 232(1), 552 S.E.2d 839(2001)."The standard by which findings of fact are reviewed is the `any evidence' rule, under which a finding by the trial court supported by any evidence must be upheld."(Citation omitted.)Southerland v. Southerland,278 Ga. 188(1), 598 S.E.2d 442(2004).

The record shows that the home in question was originally purchased by Wife, and both parties' names were later placed on a security deed.Prior to the second marriage of the parties, however, Wife requested Husband to quitclaim any interest in the property to her on advice of her attorney in order to ensure that the home did not become marital property.Husband complied and signed a quitclaim deed.Although Husband claims that the home should nonetheless be considered marital property because he performed certain upkeep to it during the second marriage, the record also shows that Husband contributed significantly to the amount of debt secured by the property, ultimately diminishing its worth.Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the home was the separate property of Wife.Id. at 189(1), 598 S.E.2d 442.

3.Husband contends that the trial court erred by failing to distribute some portion of Wife's pension to him as part of an equitable distribution.

In equitable actions for divorce, the factfinder possesses broad discretion to distribute marital property to assure that property accumulated during the marriage is fairly divided between the parties.While each spouse is entitled to an allocation of the marital property based upon his or her respective equitable interest therein, an award is not erroneous simply because one party receives a seemingly greater share of the marital property.An equitable division of marital property does not necessarily mean an equal division.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.)Harmon v. Harmon,280 Ga. 118, 622 S.E.2d 336(2005).The record in this case shows that the trial court diligently separated the assets of the parties, attempting to create an equal distribution of assets and debts.In striking this balance, the trial court determined that Wife should be entitled to keep the proceeds of her retirement account.Given the overall distribution of assets between the parties and the trial court's detailed findings with regard thereto, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Wife's retirement account to her.Id.

4.Husband maintains that the trial court erred in its calculation of child support, again arguing that the trial court failed to properly consider the needs of Wife and Husband's...