Lord v. Lord

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lord v. Lord

200 S.E.2d 759, 231 Ga. 164, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 618

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 5, 1973

Docket28126

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 200 S.E.2d 759 (Lord v. Lord) 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

Lord v. Lord, 200 S.E.2d 759, 231 Ga. 164, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 618 (Ga. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Undercofler, Justice.

Dick Lord was held in contempt of court for failure to pay alimony and child support. The appeal is from this judgment. Held:

1. The appellant was ordered by the divorce decree to pay as alimony and child support the sum of $40 per week. He contends that since his child is now of the age of majority he should only be required to pay $20 per week as alimony. There is no merit in this contention. In Adams v. Adams, 225 Ga. 375 (169 SE2d 160) this court said: "Such a decree 'cannot be prorated among the wife and children so as to separate the amount awarded to the wife and to the children,’ and it does not authorize the pro rata reduction in the amount to be paid to the wife when one of the children marries, becomes self-supporting, or reaches the age of majority. Blalock v. Blalock, 214 Ga. 586 (4) (105 SE2d 721).”

2. The court properly found the appellant in contempt for wilfully failing to make payments on the alimony award.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Undercofler, Justice.

Dick Lord was held in contempt of court for failure to pay alimony and child support. The appeal is from this judgment. Held:

1. The appellant was ordered by the divorce decree to pay as alimony and child support the sum of $40 per week. He contends that since his child is now of the age of majority he should only be required to pay $20 per week as alimony. There is no merit in this contention. In Adams v. Adams, 225 Ga. 375 (169 SE2d 160) this court said: "Such a decree 'cannot be prorated among the wife and children so as to separate the amount awarded to the wife and to the children,’ and it does not authorize the pro rata reduction in the amount to be paid to the wife when one of the children marries, becomes self-supporting, or reaches the age of majority. Blalock v. Blalock, 214 Ga. 586 (4) (105 SE2d 721).”

2. The court properly found the appellant in contempt for wilfully failing to make payments on the alimony award.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.E.2d 759, 231 Ga. 164, 1973 Ga. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lord-v-lord-ga-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack