Doritis v. Doritis, 294 Ga. 421

Husband and wife divorced in March 2012 with a settlement incorporated into the final decree.
Wife filed a contempt petition alleging Husband failed to turn over jewelry from a basement safe.
Husband counterclaimed for contempt alleging Wife failed to comply with parenting/visitation provisions and failed to reimburse home repair costs.
Trial court found the parties had an agreement on jewelry distribution and ordered Husband to return items or compensate Wife for items sold.
Court valued remaining jewelry at $40,000 and devised a method to account for missing items; ordered list of disputed home repair expenses for court review.
Trial court denied contempt for Wife on visitation issues but held authority over child counseling/visitation decisions; judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jewelry distribution violated the decree as an impermissible modification.	Doritis argues the decree set a final, exclusive inventory for division.	Wife-equivalent argues agreement on jewelry allowed under decree's procedures.	Not an improper modification; court enforced a party agreement under the decree.
Whether the trial court's valuation of jewelry was supported by credible evidence.	Doritis asserts insufficient credible valuation.	Wife's inventory valued at $40,000; undisputed at hearing.	Valuation supported; method reasonable given missing items.
Whether the term 'repairs' in the decree includes Wife's claimed household expenses.	Doritis contends broader reimbursement for repairs.	Wife contends only specific repair credits at sale were intended.	Reasonable interpretation; not a modification of decree.
Whether withholding net proceeds from the home sale to enforce jewelry restitution was improper modification.	Doritis contends pre-condition to net proceeds exists in decree.	Wife argues no such pre-condition in decree.	Improper modification; reverse that portion of the ruling.
Whether the trial court properly handled contempt/visitation issues given the child's preferences and age.	Doritis claims wife failed to comply with visitation terms.	Wife did not violate visitation; child chose not to visit; court exercised discretion over counseling.	No abuse of discretion; child’s wishes and best interests were considered.

Buckley v. Buckley, 239 Ga. 433, 434 (1977) (Ga. 1977) (decree interpretation of property division principles in contempt context)
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 292 Ga. 81 (1) 734 SE2d 355 (2012) (Ga. 2012) (endorses enforcing a decree through contempt when appropriate)
Hudson v. Hudson, 220 Ga. 730 (141 SE2d 453) (Ga. 1965) (reiterates statutory/enforcement framework for contempt orders)
Killingsworth v. Killingsworth, 286 Ga. 234, 236 (686 SE2d 640) (Ga. 2009) (clarifies when contempt rulings involve clarification vs modification)
Cason v. Cason, 281 Ga. 296, 297 (1) (637 SE2d 716) (Ga. 2006) (guides interpreting divorce decrees by looking at four corners of agreement)
Ward v. Ward, 236 Ga. 860, 861 (226 SE2d 52) (Ga. 1976) (intent of the parties governs decree interpretation)
Worley v. Whiddon, 261 Ga. 218 (403 SE2d 799) (Ga. 1991) (limits on supervisory authority over child visitation/counseling)