Meriwether & Tharp, LLC
6788799000 Meriwether & Tharp, LLC 1545 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 300 Varied
If you have divorce questions

Cumming, Georgia Divorce: Alimony Modification, Permanent Alimony – Georgia Case Update

  • News
  • Alimony

An interesting alimony modification case from Cumming, Georgia was recently reviewed (and affirmed) by the Georgia Supreme Court on April 28, 2009. See Crosby v. Lebert (S09A09). The facts in that case indicated that parties were divorced in December of 2005. The parties had entered into a settlement agreement in their Forsyth County divorce that required the Husband to make monthly installments on a Cadillac Escalade, but the payments were clearly defined as permanent periodic alimony, which “terminate upon remarriage of the party to whom the obligations are owed”under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-5 (b). Additionally, the Husband was required to pay the Wife’s health insurance, but these payments were considered periodic alimony payments as well. The Wife remarried in April of 2006 and the Husband informed her that she would be responsible for the remaining payments on the automobile and her own health insurance.

When the Wife protested, the Husband filed a Declaratory Judgment and moved for Summary Judgment. OCGA § 19-6-5 (b) states that “All obligations for permanent alimony, however created, the time for performance of which has not arrived, shall terminate upon remarriage of the party to whom the obligations are owed unless otherwise provided.” The Forsyth County divorce judge agreed with the Husband and the Wife became responsible for the remaining payments on the Escalade and her health insurance.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Wife argued that the Husband was supposed to “pay all monthly installment payments of Wife’s vehicle until the vehicle is paid in full”and he could therefore not stop his payments because of her remarriage. The rest of that provision , however, stated “…and shall do so in the form of permanent periodic alimony” (emphasis added).The Supreme Court found that the second half of the provision clearly showed the intent of the parties was to have it governed by OCGA § 19-6-5 (b).

Categories:

Alimony Modification
Back to Blog