Ridley v. Grandison

389 S.E.2d 746, 260 Ga. 6
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 9, 1990
DocketS89A0510
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 389 S.E.2d 746 (Ridley v. Grandison) 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
Ridley v. Grandison, 389 S.E.2d 746, 260 Ga. 6 (Ga. 1990).

Opinions

Smith, Presiding Justice.

We granted the appellant’s discretionary application, and we affirm. The appellant, Jerome Ridley, and the appellee, Mae Grandison, a/k/a Mae Ridley, met in Virginia in 1976. Sometime in 1979, the appellant moved into the appellee’s apartment with the appellee and her son, and they resided there together for approximately six years.

In June 1985, the appellant moved to Macon and in December 1985, the appellant moved the appellee and her son to Macon. He claimed the moving expenses on his federal tax return; he claimed the appellee’s son for federal and state income tax purposes; and filed taxes as head of household. Shortly after moving into their Macon home, the parties completed a credit application with a local furniture company. The application stated: “Whether or not married, you have the right to apply for credit separately from or jointly with your spouse or another person.” The parties checked the box marked “married,” and the appellee signed the application as “Mae Ridley.” The parties obligated themselves for an amount in excess of five thousand dollars for the furniture they purchased with the approved credit application.

In 1988 the appellee filed a complaint for divorce; one of the grounds was adultery. In her complaint she alleged that she and the appellant had a common law marriage. The jury found that a common law marriage existed and awarded the parties a divorce. There was a division of property and liabilities on the property and the appellee was awarded alimony for three years.

After a hearing, the trial court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding and verdict and the appellant’s motions for j.n.o.v. and new trial were denied.

There was evidence to support the jury’s verdict in this case, and this Court will not disturb a verdict if there is any evidence to support the verdict. Horton v. Kitchens, 259 Ga. 446 (383 SE2d 871) (1989).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Weltner, Hunt, and Fletcher, JJ., who dissent.

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

Related

Richardson v. Richardson
87 Va. Cir. 411 (Chesapeake County Circuit Court, 2014)
Franklin v. Franklin
558 S.E.2d 738 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2002)
Baynes v. Baynes
467 S.E.2d 195 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Dismuke v. C & S TRUST CO.
407 S.E.2d 739 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1991)
Ridley v. Grandison
389 S.E.2d 746 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
389 S.E.2d 746, 260 Ga. 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridley-v-grandison-ga-1990.