Moon v. Moon

Supreme Court of Georgia

Moon v. Moon

240 S.E.2d 17, 240 Ga. 208, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1450

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 25, 1977

Docket32845

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 240 S.E.2d 17 (Moon v. Moon) 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

Moon v. Moon, 240 S.E.2d 17, 240 Ga. 208, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1450 (Ga. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Chief Justice.

The appellee filed a petition for divorce, alimony and child support. The appellant counterclaimed for divorce, and the trial court granted a divorce on the pleadings with the remaining issues tried before a jury. The jury awarded the appellee the house and seven acres where the parties had been living, $30,000 in savings certificates and $50 per week for child support. Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled and he appeals.

1. The first enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in overruling the motion for new trial because of excessiveness of the award to the wife. The wife was awarded the home, valued at $20,000, and $30,000 in savings certificates. The appellant retained a 49-acre tract with a house valued at between $50,000 and $60,000, several thousand dollars in heavy machinery and trucks, some shares of bank stock and a small savings account. In addition, some $36,000 had been depleted from the savings accounts by appellant between the time of separation and the trial. From these facts we cannot say that the award to the wife was excessive. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial on this ground.

2. The second and third enumerations of error contend the trial court erred in its charge on alimony and the burden of proof. The court defined alimony and then charged: ".. . the burden of proof in this case is upon that party asserting a contention of the party, each party may prove — must prove his or her contentions by what is known as a preponderance of evidence.” The charge given *209 was a general statement of the law contained in Code § 38-103 and is not subject to the objection that it was burden-shifting. The charge on alimony also was a correct statement of the law and, in addition, the jury did not award any periodic alimony, but only a division of the property. There is no merit in these enumerations of error.

Submitted October 12, 1977 Decided October 25, 1977 Rehearing denied November 9, 1977. G. Hughel Harrison, for appellant. Cheeley & Chandler, Joseph E. Cheeley, for appellee.

3. The fourth enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in excluding the pleadings from the jury. The appellant argues that while the pleadings are not evidence, they contain the contentions of the parties which would have aided the jury in its deliberations. All the contentions of the parties contained in the pleadings went to the issue of divorce, and a judgment on the pleadings was granted on that issue. There is no merit in this enumeration of error.

4. The remaining enumeration of error contends the failure to prove the residency requirement renders the judgment void. The appellee alleged in her petition the necessary residency requirements and appellant in his answer admitted the allegations of these paragraphs.

"A party to a suit will not be allowed to disprove an admission made in his pleadings without withdrawing it from the record.” Venable v. Block, 138 Ga. App. 215 (1) (225 SE2d 755) (1976). There is no merit in this enumeration of error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Nichols, Chief Justice.

The appellee filed a petition for divorce, alimony and child support. The appellant counterclaimed for divorce, and the trial court granted a divorce on the pleadings with the remaining issues tried before a jury. The jury awarded the appellee the house and seven acres where the parties had been living, $30,000 in savings certificates and $50 per week for child support. Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled and he appeals.

1. The first enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in overruling the motion for new trial because of excessiveness of the award to the wife. The wife was awarded the home, valued at $20,000, and $30,000 in savings certificates. The appellant retained a 49-acre tract with a house valued at between $50,000 and $60,000, several thousand dollars in heavy machinery and trucks, some shares of bank stock and a small savings account. In addition, some $36,000 had been depleted from the savings accounts by appellant between the time of separation and the trial. From these facts we cannot say that the award to the wife was excessive. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial on this ground.

2. The second and third enumerations of error contend the trial court erred in its charge on alimony and the burden of proof. The court defined alimony and then charged: ".. . the burden of proof in this case is upon that party asserting a contention of the party, each party may prove — must prove his or her contentions by what is known as a preponderance of evidence.” The charge given *209 was a general statement of the law contained in Code § 38-103 and is not subject to the objection that it was burden-shifting. The charge on alimony also was a correct statement of the law and, in addition, the jury did not award any periodic alimony, but only a division of the property. There is no merit in these enumerations of error.

Submitted October 12, 1977 Decided October 25, 1977 Rehearing denied November 9, 1977. G. Hughel Harrison, for appellant. Cheeley & Chandler, Joseph E. Cheeley, for appellee.

3. The fourth enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in excluding the pleadings from the jury. The appellant argues that while the pleadings are not evidence, they contain the contentions of the parties which would have aided the jury in its deliberations. All the contentions of the parties contained in the pleadings went to the issue of divorce, and a judgment on the pleadings was granted on that issue. There is no merit in this enumeration of error.

4. The remaining enumeration of error contends the failure to prove the residency requirement renders the judgment void. The appellee alleged in her petition the necessary residency requirements and appellant in his answer admitted the allegations of these paragraphs.

"A party to a suit will not be allowed to disprove an admission made in his pleadings without withdrawing it from the record.” Venable v. Block, 138 Ga. App. 215 (1) (225 SE2d 755) (1976). There is no merit in this enumeration of error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 S.E.2d 17, 240 Ga. 208, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moon-v-moon-ga-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack