Cooper v. Cooper

169 S.E.2d 324, 225 Ga. 462, 1969 Ga. LEXIS 531
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 1969
Docket25198
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 169 S.E.2d 324 (Cooper v. Cooper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cooper v. Cooper, 169 S.E.2d 324, 225 Ga. 462, 1969 Ga. LEXIS 531 (Ga. 1969).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

A former wife appeals from a finding that her former husband is not in contempt of court for failure to pay her alimony. The proceeding began when Eloise M. Cooper filed in the Superior Court of Cobb ■ County a petition to punish for contempt against Robert Charles Cooper, alleging that he had wilfully failed to pay a named amount required by a divorce and alimony decree of that court.

Both parties submitted evidence by interrogatories, in which they took diverse positions, and the former wife submitted an affidavit in support of her contentions.

As we appraise it, the evidence was conflicting on the material issues, to wit, whether she was self-supporting, and if not, whether his failure to pay the amount required to be paid in that event was wilful.

However, we conclude that the trial judge’s finding was authorized by the evidence.

There is no merit in the former wife’s contention that the judgment in the former husband’s favor is erroneous because it was made pursuant to a motion for summary judgment filed by him and that the conflicts in the evidence did not authorize a summary judgment in his favor. It does not appear that the former wife was denied the right to submit further evidence, whether by testimony or otherwise. Thus, while in the form of a summary judgment proceeding, what actually transpired was a hearing on the petition for contempt. A judgment correct for any reason will not be reversed. In the situation here it would be an act of futility to send the case back for another [463]*463hearing in view of the evidence already presented and the judge’s evaluation of it as shown in the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Mobley and Grice, JJ., who dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Southeastern Fidelity Insurance v. Fluellen
198 S.E.2d 407 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Bugden v. Bugden
174 S.E.2d 922 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1970)
Cooper v. Cooper
169 S.E.2d 324 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 S.E.2d 324, 225 Ga. 462, 1969 Ga. LEXIS 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-cooper-ga-1969.