Yates v. Yates
| Decision Date | 16 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 46103,46103 |
| Citation | 259 Ga. 131,377 S.E.2d 677 |
| Parties | YATES v. YATES. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Dennis D. Watson, Watson & Dana, LaFayette, for Edward Warrenfells yates, jr.
Howard Jones, Jones & Murphy, Calhoun, for Henrietta King Sies Yates.
We granted a discretionary application in this case to determine whether the trial court, sitting as the trier of fact without a jury, erroneously awarded any of the husband's separate personal property by way of equitable division, and, if so, whether such an award was reversible error. We find that the court did err, and that the judgment must be reversed because of the error.
1. We start with the principle that under Stokes v. Stokes, 246 Ga. 765, 273 S.E.2d 169 (1980), "only the real and personal property and assets acquired by the parties during marriage is subject to equitable property division." Moore v. Moore, 249 Ga. 27, 28(2), 287 S.E.2d 185 (1982). More specifically, a property interest that is brought into the marriage by a spouse is not subject to equitable property division. Bailey v. Bailey, 250 Ga. 15, 295 S.E.2d 304 (1982). Likewise, "property acquired during the marriage by either party by gift, inheritance, bequest or devise remains the separate property of the party that acquired it, and is not subject to equitable division." Id. Accord, Campbell v. Campbell, 255 Ga. 461, 339 S.E.2d 591 (1986).
In the instant case, it is apparent that the trial court purported to equitably divide a substantial amount of personal property that was in fact the husband's separate property. 1 Thus, under Stokes and its progeny, the trial court erred in the course of equitably dividing the personal property of the spouses.
2. The remaining question is whether the error necessitates reversal. The wife argues that any error in equitably dividing the personal property is harmless because the trial court could have allocated the same property to her as alimony.
However, we disagree. The purpose behind the doctrine of equitable property division
is to assure that property accumulated during the marriage be fairly distributed between the parties. Although property not accumulated during the marriage and belonging to one or the other party may be taken into account in deciding questions of alimony and, indeed, the equities of the division of the marital assets, this separate property is itself not subject to division. (Emphasis supplied.)
Campbell v. Campbell, supra, 255 Ga. at 462, 339 S.E.2d 591. To hold that a trial court may disregard the separate and marital property dichotomy in awarding equitable property division, on the basis that the court can, if it chooses, award the same separate property as alimony, would erode the distinctions between separate and marital property and between equitable division and alimony. We decline to so hold, and we therefore find that the error of the court in this case requires reversing the judgment and remanding this case for entry of a new judgment consistent with this opinion. 2 Cf. Thomas v. Thomas, 259 Ga. 73, 377 S.E.2d 666 (1989). But cf. Rooks v. Rooks, 252 Ga. 11, 13-19, 311 S.E.2d 169 (1984) (concurrence of Weltner, J.).
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
All the Justices concur, except WELTNER, J., who dissents.
I agree with the majority that the property of one spouse that was owned by that spouse before the marriage cannot be awarded to the other spouse by way of equitable distribution. I disagree, however, with reversing the judgment under the facts of this case.
1. Under our law, alimony may be barred under certain circumstances . And where no alimony is sought, none may be awarded. In this case, however, the wife sought alimony, and the trial court found that some award of alimony was appropriate.
2. The trial judge, as the finder of fact, had the power to award any asset of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ackley, Bankruptcy No. G92-20423-REB. Adv. No. 93-2035.
...It remains to be seen whether this analytical framework will be fully integrated into Georgia law. See e.g. Yates v. Yates, 259 Ga. 131, 377 S.E.2d 677 (1989) (separate spousal property that may not be awarded under equitable property division cannot be awarded on the basis that such proper......
-
Payson v. Payson
...Depot stock as a marital asset for purposes of the equitable division of property. See Bass v. Bass, 264 Ga. 506, 507, (1994); Yates v. Yates, 259 Ga. 131, (1989); Thomas v. Thomas, 259 Ga. 73, 77, 377 S.E.2d 666 (1989); Halpern v. Halpern, 256 Ga. 639, 1. The equitable division of property......
-
Brown v. Little
...analysis applies only for the purpose of the equitable division of property upon the dissolution of the marriage. See Yates v. Yates, 259 Ga. 131, 377 S.E.2d 677 (1989); Bailey v. Bailey, 250 Ga. 15, 295 S.E.2d 304 (1982); Moore v. Moore, 249 Ga. 27, 287 S.E.2d 185 (1982); Stokes v. Stokes,......
-
Highsmith v. Highsmith.
...$74,000 account. Id. Accordingly, the order denying the motion for new trial must be reversed as to this issue (see Yates v. Yates, 259 Ga. 131(2), 377 S.E.2d 677 (1989)) and the matter remanded for the marital property to be equitably divided in a manner consistent with this opinion. 2. Wi......
-
Are We Witnessing the Erosion of Georgia's Separate Property Distinction?
...Id. at 772-73, 273 S.E.2d at 174. 14. Payson v. Payson, 274 Ga. 231, 232, 552 S.E.2d 839, 841 (2001) (emphasis added). 15. Yates v. Yates, 259 Ga. 131, 131, 377 S.E.2d 677, 678 (1989) (quoting Moore v. Moore, 249 Ga. 27, 28, 287 S.E.2d 185, 186 (1982)) (emphasis added). 16. Bailey v. Bailey......