Wright v. Wright
| Decision Date | 25 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 36178,36178 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. WRIGHT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Charles W. Whitney, Jesse P. Schaudies, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Robert E. Flournoy, Jr., Marietta, for appellee.
Joan Meaders Wright filed a complaint requesting upward modification of the child support payments that her former husband, Aaron Lee Wright, Jr., was required to make to her as legal custodian of the couple's two minor children. (Payments of $25 per week per child were required pursuant to the parties' original divorce decree.)
Mr. Wright answered and filed a counterclaim which prayed for a downward modification of said child support payments. Following a non-jury trial, the trial court ordered Mr. Wright to pay an additional $25 per week per child to Ms. Wright as legal custodian and $350 in attorney's fees to Ms. Wright's counsel. Mr. Wright appeals. We affirm.
1. The trial court found as a fact that, in 1976, the year of the divorce, Mr. Wright's gross income was $11,476.14 and that his discretionary income (gross income minus expenses including the court ordered child support payments) was $2,666. The trial court further found that Mr. Wright's income for 1979 would be $24,674, but that, due to "increased expenses incurred because of his new wife and child," Mr. Wright's discretionary income would be a negative $4,384.
Mr. Wright does not challenge these findings of fact; rather, he urges that said findings demonstrate that his ability to pay had worsened since the date of the original divorce decree and that consequently the trial court abused its discretion in doubling his child support payments.
Code Ann. § 30-220 provides: "The judgment of a court providing permanent alimony for the support of a child or children shall be subject to revision upon petition filed by either former spouse showing a change in the income and financial status of the former spouse liable for such alimony." Code Ann. § 30-221 provides "The only issue is whether there has been such a substantial change in the income and financial status of the party liable for alimony in cases of permanent alimony for the support of a child or children . . . as to warrant either a downward or upward revision or modification of the permanent alimony judgment."
The General Assembly intended by the enactment of these statutes to allow an alimony judgment for the support of a child to be revised upon a change in the liable former spouse's ability to pay. Maddox v. Maddox, 241 Ga. 118, 244 S.E.2d 3 (1978). Ability to pay, however, is a function of income and recognized expenses. See Crawford v. Crawford, 238 Ga. 619, 234 S.E.2d 529 (1977).
In Gibson v. Giles, 242 Ga. 720, 251 S.E.2d 231 (1978), where the liable former spouse's income was unchanged from the time of divorce, we held that increased expenses resulting from said spouse's new wife and child were "not such a change in financial status as would authorize a jury to reduce the child support payments he was obligated to pay." Id. at 721, 251 S.E.2d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Staffon v. Staffon
...All the Justices concur. 1.Georgia Dept. of Human Resources v. Sweat, 276 Ga. 627, 629, 580 S.E.2d 206 (2003). 2. Wright v. Wright, 246 Ga. 81, 82, 268 S.E.2d 666 (1980); Cowan v. Cowan, 243 Ga. 25, 26, 252 S.E.2d 454 3. 247 Ga. 184, 275 S.E.2d 23 (1981). 4. Chandler, 247 Ga. at 187, 275 S.......
-
Allen v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources ex rel. Allen
... ... spouse showing a change in the income and financial status of either former spouse or in the needs of the child or children." See also Wright v. Wright, 246 Ga. 81, 82, 268 S.E.2d 666 (1980). Thus, the literal language of the statute permits the DHR to bring a modification action on behalf ... ...
-
Miller v. Tashie, S94A1232
...the needs of the child or children." Conley v. Conley, 259 Ga. 68(4), 377 S.E.2d 663 (1989). Appellee's reliance on Wright v. Wright, 246 Ga. 81(1), 268 S.E.2d 666 (1980), is misplaced: that case holds only that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in increasing the support obligati......
-
Monroe v. Taylor, A02A1931.
...to modify alimony or child support, with no requirement that the defending party be the prevailing party. In Wright v. Wright, 246 Ga. 81, 83(2), 268 S.E.2d 666 (1980), the Supreme Court held, "[a] counterclaim is an application for purposes of [OCGA § 19-6-22, formerly] Code Ann. § 30-223[......