Hamilton v. Hamilton
292 Ga. 81
Ga.2012Background
- Husband and wife divorced in 2008 after ~23 years of marriage with one minor child.
- Final decree required $6,000/month alimony during the child's full‑time, good‑standing enrollment in an accredited higher‑education program, or $4,000/month if not enrolled in good standing.
- Wife must promptly inform husband of any enrollment status change; if she knowingly failed to inform and husband overpaid, overpayment was reimbursable plus 10% interest.
- Child attended Georgia Southern University beginning Fall 2009 with poor academic performance; later enrolled at Jefferson State Community College in Spring 2011 with a 4.0 GPA.
- Husband continued $6,000/month until Jan 2011; after learning of the school change, he reduced to $4,000/month and petitioned for contempt, arguing wife failed to notify of loss of good standing.
- Trial court held wife not in contempt, calculated a $26,000 overpayment for Jan 2010–May 2011, found child regained good standing June 2011, reinstating $6,000/month for Jun–Oct 2011, and ordered offsetting relief for the remaining balance; denied attorney fees and interest penalty; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reinstating $6,000 when child regained good standing was permissible | Husband argues reinstatement is improper modification in contempt. | Wife contends clarification/modification within decree scope. | Yes; clarification reasonable and consistent with intent. |
| Whether denial of interest penalty and attorney fees was an abuse of discretion | Husband asserts entitlement to penalties/fees for overpayment. | Wife argues lack of clear basis for penalties/fees. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Morgan, 288 Ga. 417, 419 (2011) (Ga. 2011) (trial court may interpret/clarify, not modify, a divorce decree in contempt)
- Killingsworth v. Killingsworth, 286 Ga. 234, 236 (2009) (Ga. 2009) (clarification vs modification standard in contempt)
- Cason v. Cason, 281 Ga. 296, 297 (2006) (Ga. 2006) (intent of the original decree governs)
- Kaufmann v. Kaufmann, 246 Ga. 266, 268 (1980) (Ga. 1980) (court ensures compliance with intent and spirit of decrees)
- Dohn v. Dohn, 276 Ga. 826, 827 (2003) (Ga. 2003) (goal is to look for the parties' intent in construction)