Wright v. Wright, No. S03F1141.
Decision Date | 22 September 2003 |
Docket Number | No. S03F1141. |
Citation | 277 Ga. 133,587 S.E.2d 600 |
Parties | WRIGHT v. WRIGHT. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William R. Oliver, Cornelia, for appellant.
Browning & Tanksley, Thomas J. Browning, Marietta, for appellee.
Linda (Wife) and Seaborn (Husband) Wright were married in 1985. It was a second marriage for both, and they had no children. Each brought assets and debts to the marriage, including Husband's house which was mortgaged. In 1991, his mother died and left her estate to him. He used his inheritance to start a family business, in which he and Wife both worked and were salaried employees. In 2000, she filed for divorce. After conducting a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting a divorce and dividing the marital property. We granted Wife's application for discretionary appeal pursuant to this Court's pilot project, pursuant to which we grant all non-frivolous applications seeking discretionary appeal from a final divorce decree.
1. Wife contends that the trial court erred in determining which portions of the property were marital and non-marital assets.
What items of property can legally constitute a marital or non-marital asset is a question of law for the court. However, whether a particular item of property actually constitutes a marital or non-marital asset may be a question of fact for the trier of fact to determine from the evidence. [Cit.]
Bass v. Bass, 264 Ga. 506, 507, 448 S.E.2d 366 (1994). A review of the record shows that, in making the award, the trial court correctly applied the legal principle that Payson v. Payson, 274 Ga. 231, 232(1), 552 S.E.2d 839 (2001). Because Husband brought the house to the marriage, only the subsequent increase in the net equity attributable to marital contributions was a marital asset. Hubby v Hubby, 274 Ga. 525, 556 S.E.2d 127 (2001); Thomas v. Thomas, 259 Ga. 73, 76, 377 S.E.2d 666 (1989). Husband started the family business after the marriage, but used his own separate funds to do so. Bailey v. Bailey, 250 Ga. 15, 295 S.E.2d 304 (1982). Therefore, only the appreciation in the value of the business attributable either to his and Wife's individual efforts or to their joint efforts was subject to an equitable division. Bass v. Bass, supra.
2. Wife's primary contention is that the trial court erroneously failed to award her an appropriate share of that portion of the equity in the house and the appreciation in the business which was a marital asset. According to her, she should receive one-half of the divisible equity and appreciation. However, an equitable division of marital property does not necessarily mean an equal division. Goldstein v. Goldstein, 262 Ga. 136(1), 414 S.E.2d 474 (1992). Payson v. Payson, supra at 232(1), 552 S.E.2d 839. Each spouse is entitled to an allocation of the marital property based upon his or her respective equitable interest therein. Byers v. Caldwell, 273 Ga. 228, 229, 539 S.E.2d 141 (2000). Thus, an award is not erroneous simply because one party receives a seemingly greater share of the marital property. See Mitchely v. Mitchely, 237 Ga. 138, 139, 227 S.E.2d 34 (1976). See also Clements v. Clements, 255 Ga. 714, 342 S.E.2d 463 (1986); Stokes v. Stokes, 246 Ga. 765, 273 S.E.2d 169 (1980) ( ).
3. The fact finder has broad discretion to distribute marital property to assure that it is fairly divided between the divorcing spouses. Jones v. Jones, 264 Ga. 169, 441 S.E.2d 745 (1994). In the exercise of that discretion, the fact finder should...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gordon v. Webster (In re Webster)
...a direct result of the labor and investments of the parties during the marriage is subject to equitable division." Wright v. Wright , 277 Ga. 133, 133, 587 S.E.2d 600 (2003) (citing Payson v. Payson , 274 Ga. 231, 232, 552 S.E.2d 839 (2001) ). Furthermore, appreciation in separate property ......
-
Mallen v. Mallen
...1. We granted Wife's application for discretionary review pursuant to this Court's Family Law Pilot Project. See Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133, 587 S.E.2d 600 (2003). 1. 249 Ga. 635, 640-641, 292 S.E.2d 662 2. See McGinn v. McGinn, 273 Ga. 292, 292-293, 540 S.E.2d 604 (2001). ...
-
Rickman v. State
... ... See Wright ... ...
-
Mbatha v. Cutting
...all relevant factors and circumstances. See Zekser v. Zekser , 293 Ga. 366, 367 (1), 744 S.E.2d 698 (2013) ; Wright v. Wright , 277 Ga. 133, 134 (3), 587 S.E.2d 600 (2003).4 Cutting submitted a legal opinion from a South African family law attorney while Mbatha submitted the legal opinion o......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...law from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2004. 2. O.C.G.A. Sec. 5-6-35(a)(2) (Supp. 2004). 3. Id. Sec. 5-6-35(b). 4. See Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133, 587 S.E.2d 600 (2003). Under the pilot project, all divorce and alimony discretionary applications filed with the Georgia Supreme Court on or after......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...Id. at 673, 642 S.E.2d at 95-96. 120. O.C.G.A. Sec. 5-6-35(a)(2) (1995 & Supp. 2007). 121. Id. Sec. 5-6-35(b). 122. See Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133, 587 S.E.2d 600 (2003). 123. O.C.G.A. Sec. 5-6-34 (1995 & Supp. 2007). 124. Id. Sec. 5-6-34(a)(11) (Supp. 2007). 125. 282 Ga. 51, 644 S.E.2d ......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...Id. at 742, 620 S.E.2d at 807-08. 145. 280 Ga. 118, 622 S.E.2d 336 (2005). 146. Id. at 118, 622 S.E.2d at 336 (citing Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133, 134, 587 S.E.2d 600, 601 (2003); Goldstein v. Goldstein, 262 Ga. 136, 136, 414 S.E.2d 474, 475 (1992); Mitchely v. Mitchely, 237 Ga. 138, 139,......
-
Are We Witnessing the Erosion of Georgia's Separate Property Distinction?
...Ga. 672, 672-73, 642 S.E.2d 94, 95 (2007). 43. Waters v. Waters, 280 Ga. 477, 478, 629 S.E.2d 233, 235 (2006) (quoting Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133, 134, 587 S.E.2d 600, 601 (2003)) (emphasis added); see Clements v. Clements, 255 Ga. 714, 714, 342 S.E.2d 463, 463-64 (1986) (per curiam). 44......