Shure v. Shure

Supreme Court of Georgia

Shure v. Shure

256 S.E.2d 375, 243 Ga. 695, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1032

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 30, 1979

Docket34840

StatusPublished

This text of 256 S.E.2d 375 (Shure v. Shure) 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

Shure v. Shure, 256 S.E.2d 375, 243 Ga. 695, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1032 (Ga. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

Mrs. Shure brought a contempt action against Dr. Shure for about $2,000 in expenses for sending their daughter to a technical school where she was trained as a dental assistant. He defended on the basis that he agreed only to pay for a four year college. The trial court construed the language of the agreement, "which [four year] college shall be one ... as may be mutually agreed upon by the children and the husband,” to include these expenses since he had not only discussed the choice with his daughter, but also helped her gain admittance. Although the trial court did not hold him in contempt, it ruled that Dr. Shure was liable for these costs. We affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who concurs in the judgment only.

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

Per curiam.

Mrs. Shure brought a contempt action against Dr. Shure for about $2,000 in expenses for sending their daughter to a technical school where she was trained as a dental assistant. He defended on the basis that he agreed only to pay for a four year college. The trial court construed the language of the agreement, "which [four year] college shall be one ... as may be mutually agreed upon by the children and the husband,” to include these expenses since he had not only discussed the choice with his daughter, but also helped her gain admittance. Although the trial court did not hold him in contempt, it ruled that Dr. Shure was liable for these costs. We affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who concurs in the judgment only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.E.2d 375, 243 Ga. 695, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shure-v-shure-ga-1979.