Warren v. Warren

Supreme Court of Georgia

Warren v. Warren

219 S.E.2d 161, 235 Ga. 234, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 840

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 23, 1975

Docket30198

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 219 S.E.2d 161 (Warren v. Warren) 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

Warren v. Warren, 219 S.E.2d 161, 235 Ga. 234, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 840 (Ga. 1975).

Pincite

Opinions

Nichols, Chief Justice.

Prior to the filing of a divorce action, an agreement between the parties settling all matters of alimony, child support, child custody and division of property was entered into between the parties. After the divorce action was filed, the trial court made the agreement the judgment of the court for the purpose of awarding temporary alimony, pending final disposition of the case. James Warren, Jr., in response to the complaint for divorce, as one of his defenses, contended that the agreement signed prior to the institution of the divorce action was null and void. After hearing the trial court [235]*235vacated the prior award of temporary alimony, declared the agreement to be null and void as against public policy citing Funderburk v. Funderburk, 229 Ga. 457 (192 SE2d 262), where it was held that if one of the objects of the agreement or a part of its consideration, is the promotion of a dissolution of the marriage relation existing between the parties, or to facilitate the grant of a divorce between them, such agreement is contrary to public policy.

Argued September 3, 1975 Decided September 23, 1975. Keil, Riley & Davis, William H. Norton, for appellant. Luis C. Garcia, for appellee.

The court then ordered temporary alimony pending final disposition of the case. The appeal is from this judgment and the sole enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in declaring the settlement agreement of the parties null and void for the reason that there was no sufficient competent evidence to support or warrant such finding.

While there is a fine line of distinction between a contract incident to divorce and a contract which has as one of its objectives the promotion of a dissolution of the marriage relation existing or to facilitate a divorce, yet, where as in the present case, the wife testified that in exchange for an uncontested divorce the husband agreed to pay a stipulated amount of alimony, it cannot be said that there was not evidence before the trial court to support the judgment declaring the contract null and void as being one entered into where one of its objects is the promotion of a dissolution of the marriage relation existing between the parties. Compare Beverly v. Beverly, 209 Ga. 468, 470 (74 SE2d 89).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Gunter, Hall and Hill, JJ., who dissent.

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

Nichols, Chief Justice.

Prior to the filing of a divorce action, an agreement between the parties settling all matters of alimony, child support, child custody and division of property was entered into between the parties. After the divorce action was filed, the trial court made the agreement the judgment of the court for the purpose of awarding temporary alimony, pending final disposition of the case. James Warren, Jr., in response to the complaint for divorce, as one of his defenses, contended that the agreement signed prior to the institution of the divorce action was null and void. After hearing the trial court [235]*235vacated the prior award of temporary alimony, declared the agreement to be null and void as against public policy citing Funderburk v. Funderburk, 229 Ga. 457 (192 SE2d 262), where it was held that if one of the objects of the agreement or a part of its consideration, is the promotion of a dissolution of the marriage relation existing between the parties, or to facilitate the grant of a divorce between them, such agreement is contrary to public policy.

Argued September 3, 1975 Decided September 23, 1975. Keil, Riley & Davis, William H. Norton, for appellant. Luis C. Garcia, for appellee.

The court then ordered temporary alimony pending final disposition of the case. The appeal is from this judgment and the sole enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in declaring the settlement agreement of the parties null and void for the reason that there was no sufficient competent evidence to support or warrant such finding.

While there is a fine line of distinction between a contract incident to divorce and a contract which has as one of its objectives the promotion of a dissolution of the marriage relation existing or to facilitate a divorce, yet, where as in the present case, the wife testified that in exchange for an uncontested divorce the husband agreed to pay a stipulated amount of alimony, it cannot be said that there was not evidence before the trial court to support the judgment declaring the contract null and void as being one entered into where one of its objects is the promotion of a dissolution of the marriage relation existing between the parties. Compare Beverly v. Beverly, 209 Ga. 468, 470 (74 SE2d 89).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Gunter, Hall and Hill, JJ., who dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.E.2d 161, 235 Ga. 234, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-warren-ga-1975.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack