Final judgment of divorce, affirmed; trial court did not err by ordering alimony for wife because wife is disabled and husband’s income is sufficient to pay for wife’s health insurance for two years and car payments for one year; evidence supported trial court’s division of marital property; contrary to husband’s contention, trial court did not hold him in contempt of temporary order, because trial court specifically found that his disobedience of temporary order was not willful.

McDonald v. McDonald, S11F0112 (06/13/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, June 24, 2011

Order on petition for contempt in divorce case, PARTIALLY REVERSED, since trial court ERRED  in ruling that husband was not obligated to pay termporary alimony payments that were payable prior to entry of remittitur in this case; temporary award continues in effect until entry of remittitur in trial court and, from that date on, any permanent award in final judgment takes effect; trial court did NOT ERR in in holding that temporary child support remained in effect until remittitur was entered;  husband was not in contempt for failing to make July and August, 2009 child suppport payments, since he tried to mail July check, but wife failed to sign for it, and he brought August check to August hearing; husband was not in contempt for failing to remove wife’s name from mortgage as he was unable to refinance property and demonstrated need for adidtional time to do so; husband was in contempt for failing to maintain life insurance paolicy in amount of $3M naming wife as successor trustee, despite any tax purposes for doing otherwise, as divorce decree expressly stated that he would do so; inlight of husband’s contempt, case remanded for determination of wife’s motion for attorney’s fees.

Robinson v. Robinson, S10A0929 (10/04/10), 10 FCDR 3170

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 10/15/2010.

Judgment refusing to modify downward husband’s alimony payments to his former wife, REVERSED; trial court erred in determining that language of parties’ settlement agreement established obligation for payment of lump sum alimony rather than periodic alimony, since provision provided that wife’s death would end husband’s alimony obligation for 180 payments in certain specific amounts; amount of husbands total alimony obligation was made uncertain because of contingency regarding wife’s survival; portion of trial court’s judgment finding lump sum alimony obligation and consequent ruling on merits of husband’s petition for alimony modificaiton REVERSED and case remanded for trial court’s consideration.

SHEPHERD V. COLLINS, s07a1658 (02/11/08), 08 FCDR 414

Fulton County Daily Report, 02/22/2008.

Judgment entered in parties’ divorce action, AFFIRMED; evidence supported trial court’s conclusion that husband’s income was at least $65K per year, that alimony award was proper and that husband’s age and health condition did not adversely affect his ability to pay child support; evidence that husband incurred $27K tax debt on his own supported trial court’s decision to require him to pay debt.

Vereen v. Vereen, S08F0736 (11/17/08), 08 FCDR 3664

Fulton County Daily Report, 12/08/2008

Judgment AFFIRMED, in parties’ divorce case; trial court DID NOT ERR in awarding wife $200K in lump sum equitable property division, since evidence authorized jury to find that value of marital property exceeded that amount; $600K lump sum alimony award was not excessive, given evidence that husband owned more than $1.6M in property and that his gross monthly income exceeded $16.6K; husband failed to present evidence of his inability to pay property and alimony awards in timely fashion.

Wier v. Wier, S10F0553 (06/28/10), 10 FCDR 2062

From:  Fulton County Daily Report 7/9/2010

Denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss former husband’s petition for modification and temporary reduction of alimony to $3K per month, REVERSED; couple divorced in Cobb county in December of 2008, and settlement agreement required former husband to pay defendant monthly $4.2K alimony sum for 12 years, defendant moved to Cherokee county and filed contempt motion in Cobb county, which was heard in February 2009 and, thereafter, former husband filed instant petition for modification of alimony; trial court erred in failing to dismiss former husband’s action for improper venue, because proper venue in alimony-modifiaciton action is defendants county of residence.

Parris v. Douthit, S10A0165 (04/19/2010), 10 FCDR 1425

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (04/30/2010)

Dismissal of motion for modification of alimony, AFFIRMED; as matter of law, obligation, which appellant sought to modify, consisted of lump sum alimony – 60 monthly payments of $500/month for total of $30K – which constituted non-revisable division of property and jury’s reference to periodic alimony was mere label, not statement of intent.

Rivera v. Rivera, S08A0775 (05/19/08), 08 FCDR 1694

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (05/30/08)

Judgment for wife, which found husband in willful contempt for failure to pay alimony, child support and property division in parties’ final judgment and decree of divorce, PARTIALLY REVERSED, as self-executing incarceration order for failing to pay $18,383.81 arrearage was unenforceable and should be stricken from  judgment; order in question, which executed upon affidavit of non-compliance by wife’s counsel, was prohibited, since it depended entirely upon averments of interested party.

Hall v. Doyle-Hall, S08A0980 (09/22/08), 08 FCDR 2933

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 10/03/2008.

Judgment in parties’ divorce case, AFFIRMED; trial court’s award of $40K in total alimony, actually constituted property division; with regard to parties’ marital debt, trial court stated that wife would continue to be responsible for $40K debt in her name, husband would pay wife $400 per month in alimony for 100 months for total of $40K and obligation would not terminate upon death or remarriage of either spouse; characterized of sum as alimony was not controlling, since alimony terminates at death or receiving spouse’s remarriage and trial court clearly intended award to equalize distribution of parties martial debt.

Moore v. Moore, S09F1667 (02/08/2010), 10 FCDR 324.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 2/19/2010.

Dismissal of appellant’s petition to register and enforce 1995 Massachusetts support order against her ex-husband in principal amount of $421,465.84, REVERSED; trial court erred in ruling that order could not be enforced because it was dormant under Georgia law;  appellee’s contention that Massachusetts judgment did not constitute support order under Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”) on basis that it was contempt order, AFFIRMED, since order included finding that appellee was in contempt of original judgment of divorce, but also established appellee’s arrearages for alimony and statutory interest; Massachusetts judgment was order and judgment for benefit of former spouse providing for arrearages and interest within definition of support order under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-101 (21); Massachusetts 20-year statute of limitation controlled over Georgia’s 7-year dormancy law, since choice of law provisions of UIFSA provide that law of jurisdiction, which issued support order, “governs the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments and other obligations of support and the payment of arrearages under the order;” ‘O.C.G.A. § 19-11-163 (b) provides that, ‘ “[i]n a proceeding for arrearages, the statute of limitation under the laws of Georgia or of the issuing state, whichever is longer, applies,” ‘ in any event.

Sussman v. Sussman, A09A2289 (12/02/09), 09 FCDR 3930

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 12/18/2009.