Morgan v. Morgan
288 Ga. 417
Ga.2011Background
- Husband Morgan, a Navy member, and Wife Tina divorced in 2007; settlement provided Wife would receive from Husband's retirement benefits only what the Navy requires, and Husband would sign documents to implement any required amount.
- Navy had no authority to determine the division of retirement pay between ex-spouses; 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d) governs distribution as determined by court, not Navy dictates.
- Wife sought a 50% share of the marital portion via an Agreed Domestic Relations Order (ADRO); Husband refused to sign.
- Trial court found mutual misunderstanding about Navy allocation, but treated the agreement as ambiguous and attempted to interpret/modify it to grant Wife 50% of the marital portion, including Survivor Benefit Plan coverage.
- Court held Wife’s share was the military retirement benefit portion accrued during marriage; Husband was found in contempt for not signing the ADRO; expert testimony addressed SBP implications.
- On appeal, Georgia Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court lacked authority to modify the decree in contempt, and that it improperly substituted a 50% allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt based on ADRO refusal | Wife contends contempt supported by decree ambiguity. | Husband argues lack of definite duties due to ambiguity. | Contempt improper due to ambiguity. |
| Authority to modify a divorce decree in contempt | Wife seeks enforcement/clarification and possible set-aside. | Husband asserts court may enforce decree as interpreted. | Trial court cannot modify decree in contempt. |
| Substitution of 50% allocation for Navy-based division | Wife argues equal division of marital portion is implied. | Husband maintains Navy-based allocation governs. | Court improperly substituted 50% allocation. |
| Admission of cover letter and privilege | Letter is a confidential attorney-client communication. | Copy to Wife destroys privilege. | Letter not privileged; not confidential. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farris v. Farris, 285 Ga. 331 (Ga. 2009) (contempt requires definite terms of duties)
- Buckley v. Buckley, 239 Ga. 433 (Ga. 1977) (property division not sufficiently specific for contempt)
- Smith v. Smith, 281 Ga. 204 (Ga. 2006) (court lacks authority to modify divorce decree in contempt)
- Roquemore v. Burgess, 281 Ga. 593 (Ga. 2007) (court construes contract, not makes a new one)
- Johnston v. Johnston, 281 Ga. 666 (Ga. 2007) (clarifying meaning of term in divorce decree)
- Darroch v. Willis, 286 Ga. 566 (Ga. 2010) (court improperly compelled asset disposition contrary to agreement)
- Cason v. Cason, 281 Ga. 296 (Ga. 2006) (distinguishable where court calculated equivalent asset, not allocated)