In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment awarding Gay H. Hammond alimony in the amount of $1,250 per month, once her husband’s pension matures, holding that she could not complain of any error in the trial court’s failure to utilize the time rule formula in determining the parties’ interest in the pension, after she induced the alleged error in urging the trial court to evaluate and distribute the pension as alimony. The Court also held that the trial court did not err in evaluating the alimony payment based on the assumption that the husband ceased participation in the pension plan beginning on August 31, 2009, since the parties introduced evidence evaluating the pension as of that date and neither party took steps to obtain and present updated pension values as of the hearing date. Next, some evidence supported the trial court’s valuation of the amount of alimony stemming from the husband’s pension; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the parties’ marital assets; and the trial court did not err in ruling that Hammond would be entitled to claim at least one-half of the mortgage interest deduction in any calendar year, after awarding her the marital residence. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Hammond to indemnify her husband and hold him harmless for the debts, which the trial court ordered her to pay, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Hammond $4,074 in attorneys’ fees. Hunstein, C.J., concurred in Divisions 1, 2, 4 and 5 and in the judgment only.

Hammond v. Hammond, S11F1978, (02/06/12)

Fulton County Daily Report, February 10, 2012

The Supreme Court partially reversed the order retroactively extinguishing William Branham’s alimony obligation to his former wife Jenny Nicholson f/k/a Branham, holding that the trial court’s order vitiated the finality of the judgment obtained as to each past due installment and was therefore clearly contrary to the rule set forth in Hendrix v. Stone, 261 Ga. 874 (1992). However, the Court affirmed that portion of the order providing that each party would be responsible for his or her own attorneys’ fees, holding that Nicholson waived her right to challenge the order under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-19 (b), where she acquiesced in the trial court’s ruling, never requested attorneys’ fees and failed to provide any evidence supporting a claim for attorneys’ fees.

Branham v. Branham, S11A1896 (01/09/12)

Fulton County Daily Report, January 13, 2012

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 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

Judgment AFFIRMED in parties’ divorce action; trial court DID NOT abuse its discretion in awarding wife $50K in lump sum alimony, since evidence supported trial court’s findings regarding husband’s income level; trial court DID NOT abuse its discretion in determining that home in Tattnall county was wife’s separate property, since husband quitclaimed any interest he had in property to wife prior to their second marriage; trial court DID NOT abuse its discretion in awarding wife her retirement account, given trial court’s diligent separation of parties’ assets and overall asset distribution; trial court DID NOT err in calculating child support; evidence of husband’s adulterous acts during parties’ second marriage revived his prior acts during their first marriage as admissible evidence; trial court DID NOT abuse its discretion in awarding wife attorneys’ fees; husband had reasonable notice that trial court would consider wife’s contempt claims based on unpaid child support at divorce trial.

Wood v. Wood, S07F1474 (01/08/08), 08 FCDR 66

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (01/25/08)

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.