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.

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