GA judgment upholding validity and enforceability of parties’ antenuptial agreement, AFFIRMED, 5-2; agreement was clearly contract made in contemplation of divorce, not contract made in contemplation of marriage, thus, agreement was not subject to OCGA 19-3-63’s dual attestation requirement – agreement addressed alimony and referred explicitly to possibility of divorce; record supported trial court’s finding that there are adequate pre-execution disclosure of husband’s financial statue – parties dated and/or lived together for more than 3.5 years before marriage, wife knew that husband owned professional building where she worked and wife knew that husband had siccessful real estte practice and knew about roughly 95 peson of land he owned when she signed agreement.

Lawrence v. Lawrence, S09A1370 (11/09/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (November 20, 2009)

Judgment partially reversed in parties’ divorce case;  trial court erred in concluding severability clause in divorce decree and is ordered to strike that language from judgment on remand;  remaining portions of trial court’s judgment, affirmed; trial court had authority to strike husband’s jury trial demand as proper sanctions for his willful refusal to participate in specially set trial; language in divorce decree regarding treatment of $200K lump sum property division as alimony in event husband files bankruptcy prior to paying amount in full did not change name of award;  trial court did not err under 19-6-2 in including wife’s attorneys’ fees for appellate proceedings during pendency of litigation in its fee award.

Kautter v. Kautter, S09F0958 (10/19/09).

Judgment in parties’ divorce case partially reversed; trial court erred in awarding wife $36.5K in lump sum alimony, payable over 3.5 months, given total lack of evidence showing that husband had financial resources to pay that amount.

Coker v. Coker, S09F1159 (10/19/09)

Fulton County Daily Report – 10/30/2009.

Grant of partial summary judgment to husband in parties’ divorce case, REVERSED, as fact question remained regarding whether husband disclosed his income to wife prior to execution of prenuptial agreement;  wife did not have duty to inquire as to husband’s financial situation and insufficient evidence existed for Court to conclude as matter of law that parties’ standard of living prior to marriage put wife on notice that husband failed to disclose material facts so as to render nondisclosure immaterial.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (10/09/09)

Quarles v. Quarles, S09A0928 (09/28/09), 09 FCDR 3046

Attorney:  Terry D. Tolbert, Lawrence L. Washburn III

Judges: Valerie Head, Gwinnett Superior Court; Supreme Court of GA, Carley