Zekser v. Zekser, 293 Ga. 366

Marital assets and debts were divided in the final divorce decree; Marlene received the marital residence, a SUV, and her retirement account, while Michael received his consulting business and his retirement account.
Marlene was ordered to pay Michael approximately $102,612, representing about half the equity in the marital residence.
Marlene alone assumed the indebtedness on the marital residence and on student loans for her law school education.
Trial court found Marlene’s law school attendance drained family resources but did not allocate any law school debt to Michael beyond the court’s decision.
The court noted a separate $100,000 trust fund belonging to Marlene as her separate property; it also discussed Marlene’s alleged infidelities and Michael’s opposition to law school at the outset.
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s broad discretion in property division and affirmed the decree.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the property division was equitable given assets and debts	Marlene argues the division was inequitable, notably the sole burden of law school debt.	Michael contends the court’s distribution was fair and within broad discretionary powers.	No abuse of discretion; division affirmed.
Whether Michael should share in Marlene’s law school debt	Marlene contends Michael should share the indebtedness.	Michael argues there was no obligation to share beyond the court’s allocation.	Entire indebtedness for law school assigned to Marlene affirmed.
Whether evidence supported the finding of cruel treatment	Marlene asserts cruel treatment by Michael should have affected the division.	Michael contends trial court properly assessed credibility and found no cruel treatment.	No abuse of discretion; no finding of cruel treatment.
Scope of discretionary review regarding child support	Marlene argues issues beyond the enumerated errors should be reviewed.	The court limited review to enumerated errors in the discretionary application.	Forfeited review of child support; scope properly limited.

Driver v. Driver, 292 Ga. 800 (Ga. 2013) (equitable division depends on relevant circumstances; broad discretion to trial court)
Black v. Black, 292 Ga. 691 (Ga. 2013) (equitable division need not be equal; depend on conduct and circumstances)
Pennington v. Pennington, 291 Ga. 165 (Ga. 2012) (factors for asset division; conduct considerations)
Wood v. Wood, 283 Ga. 8 (Ga. 2008) (deference to trial court on credibility; non-reweighing on appeal)
Bloomfield v. Bloomfield, 282 Ga. 108 (Ga. 2007) (credibility and factual finding review standard)
Shaw v. Shaw, 290 Ga. 354 (Ga. 2012) (parental and economic considerations in division)