Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Partridge v. Partridge

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 1, 2015

PARTRIDGE
v.
PARTRIDGE

Domestic relations. Lincoln Superior Court. Before Judge Dunaway.

Judgment affirmed.

Tucker, Everitt, Long, Brewton & Lanier, John B. Long, for appellant.

James T. Jones, Jr., for appellee.

MELTON, Justice. All the Justices concur.

OPINION

Melton, Justice.

James Partridge (" Husband" ) and Bridget Partridge (" Wife" ) were married on December 30, 1994, and had two children together. One of the children was born in 1994, and the other was born on June 5, 1997. The parties separated on September 1, 2013. Wife filed for divorce on November 25, 2013, and the parties were divorced pursuant to a June 2, 2014 Final Decree. As part of the Final Decree, the trial court ordered, among other things, that Husband " shall continue [297 Ga. 273] to make monthly payments on the minor child's automobile, which is currently in her possession, until said automobile is paid in full" ; and Husband " shall pay alimony to [Wife] in the amount of $38,460, payable as follows: (a) $345 per month from June 1, 2014 until June 1, 2015; (b) $940 per month from June 1, 2015 until June 1, 2016; (c) $640 per month from June 1, 2016 until June 1, 2019." This Court granted Husband's application to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 34 (4), by which this Court shall grant a timely application from a final judgment and decree

Page 274

of divorce that is determined by the Court to have possible merit. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

1. Husband contends that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay alimony to Wife. Specifically, he claims that Wife affirmatively waived any right to collect alimony in light of her testimony at the final hearing in which she claimed that she did not want alimony. We disagree.

Although, when questioned by Husband's counsel, Wife stated that she was " not asking [Husband] to support her," and she responded " no" when the trial court asked her if she " was making any claim on any of [Husband's] property ... alimony or otherwise" ; these statements do not represent the totality of Wife's testimony regarding alimony. When questioned by her own counsel on direct examination, the following exchange took place:

Q. Okay. And do you feel that you will need some economic assistance from [Husband] to be able to maintain your lifestyle and be able to support the children?
A. Yes.

(Emphasis supplied.) See also OCGA § 19-6-1 (a) (" Alimony is an allowance out of one party's estate, made for the support of the other party when living separately." ). It cannot be said that Wife unequivocally relinquished her claim to receive alimony based on her testimony at the final hearing. In this regard, to the extent that her testimony on alimony at the final hearing can be viewed as conflicting, such conflicts were for the trial court to resolve, not this Court. Haskell v. Haskell, 286 Ga. 112, 112-113 (1) (686 S.E.2d 102) (2009) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.