Rea v. Rea

Supreme Court of Georgia

Rea v. Rea

226 S.E.2d 589, 237 Ga. 50, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1144

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 8, 1976

Docket31079

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 226 S.E.2d 589 (Rea v. Rea) 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

Rea v. Rea, 226 S.E.2d 589, 237 Ga. 50, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1144 (Ga. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

Hall, Justice.

The sole question presented on this appeal from a divorce and alimony judgment entered by the trial court sitting by stipulation without a jury, is the claimed excessiveness of the permanent alimony award. We have reviewed the record, and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in making the challenged award. See Warner v. Warner, 234 Ga. 757 (218 SE2d 29) (1975); Thomas v. Thomas, 233 Ga. 916 (213 SE2d 877) (1975); Knighton v. Knighton, 230 Ga. 506 (197 SE2d 726) (1973); Brock v. Brock, 228 Ga. 500 (186 SE2d 537) (1972).

Appellee’s motions to dismiss the appeal, and for ten percent damages under Code Ann. § 6-1801, are denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who dissents as to the denial of damages under [51]*51Code Ann. § 6-1801. Argued May 10, 1976 Decided June 8, 1976. George P. Wright, for appellant. Benjamin Zeesman, for appellee.

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

Hall, Justice.

The sole question presented on this appeal from a divorce and alimony judgment entered by the trial court sitting by stipulation without a jury, is the claimed excessiveness of the permanent alimony award. We have reviewed the record, and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in making the challenged award. See Warner v. Warner, 234 Ga. 757 (218 SE2d 29) (1975); Thomas v. Thomas, 233 Ga. 916 (213 SE2d 877) (1975); Knighton v. Knighton, 230 Ga. 506 (197 SE2d 726) (1973); Brock v. Brock, 228 Ga. 500 (186 SE2d 537) (1972).

Appellee’s motions to dismiss the appeal, and for ten percent damages under Code Ann. § 6-1801, are denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who dissents as to the denial of damages under [51]*51Code Ann. § 6-1801. Argued May 10, 1976 Decided June 8, 1976. George P. Wright, for appellant. Benjamin Zeesman, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 S.E.2d 589, 237 Ga. 50, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rea-v-rea-ga-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack