Williamson v. Weeks

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Williamson v. Weeks

235 S.E.2d 587, 142 Ga. App. 149, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1514

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1977

Docket53775

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 235 S.E.2d 587 (Williamson v. Weeks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williamson v. Weeks, 235 S.E.2d 587, 142 Ga. App. 149, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1514 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

In pre-trial discovery in an action seeking vindictive damages pursuant to Code § 105-2003 for criminal conversation and alienation of his wife’s affections, Weeks made demand for production of extensive information and data regarding Williamson’s financial affairs and property holdings over a five-year period. In response, by a motion for protective order, Williamson claimed the information to be privileged, contending that production of this information and answers to questions as to his financial affairs might tend to incriminate him or work for a forfeiture of his estate. The trial judge denied the protective order and certified the judgment for immediate review, and we have granted an interlocutory appeal.

It is clear that where "the entire injury is to the peace, happiness, or feelings of the plaintiff,” the jury is allowed to weigh the defendant’s "worldly circumstances,” i.e., his financial worth. Code § 105-2003; Hodges v. Youmans, 129 Ga. App. 481, 486 (8) (200 SE2d 157) (1973). Recovery under this Code section has been allowed for breach of promise to marry (Morris v. Stanford, 58 Ga. App. 726 (199 SE 773) (1938)), for criminal conversation (Davis v. Cochran, 42 Ga. App. 215 [150]*150(155 SE 379) (1930)) and for alienation of affections (Orr v. Sasseman, 239 F2d 182 (CA 5, 1957, applying Georgia law)). However, "evidence of a defendant’s present worth is relevant, but evidence of his past wealth and earnings is not.”

Argued April 7, 1977 Decided April 15, 1977 Rehearing denied April 29, 1977 Floyd & Stanford, Jackson C. Floyd, Jr., C. Glenn Stanford, for appellant. Ross & Finch, A. Russell Blank, for appellee.

Consequently the case is remanded with direction that the trial court determine whether that portion of the motion to produce which seeks information of past earnings is appropriate. Hodges v. Youmans, 129 Ga. App. 481, 488, supra.

Judgment affirmed with direction.

Deen, P. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

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

Webb, Judge.

In pre-trial discovery in an action seeking vindictive damages pursuant to Code § 105-2003 for criminal conversation and alienation of his wife’s affections, Weeks made demand for production of extensive information and data regarding Williamson’s financial affairs and property holdings over a five-year period. In response, by a motion for protective order, Williamson claimed the information to be privileged, contending that production of this information and answers to questions as to his financial affairs might tend to incriminate him or work for a forfeiture of his estate. The trial judge denied the protective order and certified the judgment for immediate review, and we have granted an interlocutory appeal.

It is clear that where "the entire injury is to the peace, happiness, or feelings of the plaintiff,” the jury is allowed to weigh the defendant’s "worldly circumstances,” i.e., his financial worth. Code § 105-2003; Hodges v. Youmans, 129 Ga. App. 481, 486 (8) (200 SE2d 157) (1973). Recovery under this Code section has been allowed for breach of promise to marry (Morris v. Stanford, 58 Ga. App. 726 (199 SE 773) (1938)), for criminal conversation (Davis v. Cochran, 42 Ga. App. 215 [150]*150(155 SE 379) (1930)) and for alienation of affections (Orr v. Sasseman, 239 F2d 182 (CA 5, 1957, applying Georgia law)). However, "evidence of a defendant’s present worth is relevant, but evidence of his past wealth and earnings is not.”

Argued April 7, 1977 Decided April 15, 1977 Rehearing denied April 29, 1977 Floyd & Stanford, Jackson C. Floyd, Jr., C. Glenn Stanford, for appellant. Ross & Finch, A. Russell Blank, for appellee.

Consequently the case is remanded with direction that the trial court determine whether that portion of the motion to produce which seeks information of past earnings is appropriate. Hodges v. Youmans, 129 Ga. App. 481, 488, supra.

Judgment affirmed with direction.

Deen, P. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 S.E.2d 587, 142 Ga. App. 149, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-weeks-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack