Hall v. Hall

239 S.E.2d 356, 240 Ga. 28, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1379
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 24, 1977
Docket32364
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 239 S.E.2d 356 (Hall v. Hall) 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
Hall v. Hall, 239 S.E.2d 356, 240 Ga. 28, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1379 (Ga. 1977).

Opinion

Marshall, Justice.

This case is here on appeal following remand to the trial court in the earlier decision of Hall v. Hall, 237 Ga. 477 (228 SE2d 865) (1976). The facts appear in the prior decision and will be restated here only as is necessary for a determination of the legal issues presented.

Following a hearing, the trial court has found that the appellant wife, through her attorney, received notice of the final divorce decree. She did not appeal it. Not being reversed or set aside, that decree is binding on her.

Furthermore, under numerous decisions of this court, the trial court in this contempt proceeding lacked the authority to modify the divorce decree. See Peppers v. Peppers, 238 Ga. 411 (233 SE2d 374) (1977) and cits.

The child support provision in the decree, which is the subject of this contempt action, is unenforceable to the extent that it requires the appellee husband to provide support for his daughter after she has reached the age of 18 until she reaches the age of 21. A father is not required to support his child after the child reaches the age of majority (Code Ann. § 74-105), which is 18 years of age in Georgia. Code Ann. § 74-104.1 (Ga. L. 1972, pp. 193, 199; 1973, p. 590). The divorce decree was rendered after the effective date of the 1972 Act changing the age of majority from 21 to 18. The child support award contained in the decree was not part of the parties’ agreement and was supplied by the trial judge. The child support award is, therefore, unenforceable.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court holding that the appellee husband can not be held in contempt is correct, although perhaps not for the reason assigned by the trial judge, and must therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. *29 Brinson, Askew & Berry, C. King Askew, for appellant. Horace T. Clary, for appellee.

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

Related

Celio Burrowes v. Tenet Healthsystem Gb, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012
Burrowes v. Tenet Healthsystem GB, Inc.
735 S.E.2d 131 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
Nuvell National Auto Finance, LLC v. Monroe Guaranty Insurance
736 S.E.2d 463 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
Dickerson v. Dickerson
545 S.E.2d 378 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Beckham v. O'BRIEN
336 S.E.2d 375 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
State v. Hasty
280 S.E.2d 873 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Kaufmann v. Kaufmann
271 S.E.2d 175 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
Ritchea v. Ritchea
260 S.E.2d 871 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1979)
Harden v. Harden
253 S.E.2d 769 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1979)
Wilcox v. Wilcox
250 S.E.2d 465 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)
Gallit v. Buckley
242 S.E.2d 89 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 S.E.2d 356, 240 Ga. 28, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-hall-ga-1977.