*1 thus, hearsay well the as might preclude plats presump- constituted plats tive evidence under OCGA 36-7-12. the were not § of expert opinion as a basis the because the precluded appraiser’s in such not mandate exclusion hearsay of circumstance does presence to be accorded the evidence. Cheek v. goes weight but instead Wainwright, Ga. the
the court the that it was not to consider tax maps cautioned as ownership depicted as evidence of tracts but evidence the records. county of tax
4. evidence with the collective Finally, documentary along Jr., Bland, Williams, Mae testimony Adolphus of Carrie and their neighbors, sufficiently possession showed the extent actual Resseau’s disputed by family land the Williams withstand motion on of title See OCGA directed verdict the issue prescription. 44-5-161. Fletcher, All P. except J., Thompson, as to and judgment only who concurs in the Division as to 1. judgment only who concurs in the Division Fierman, for appellant. Martin L. Huskins, Huskins, W. for appellees.
Huskins Donald
S97A0869. HAWKINS v. HAWKINS. (491 SE2d Presiding Justice.
Fletcher, action, the husband to pay this divorce ordered the wife half of $5,000 years, month for five per granted the current value of the husband’s retirement ordered plan, beneficiary the wife life insurance policy husband to name as his years receiving until she retirement benefits. We began discretionary to consider whether granted application trial to maintain a life court erred husband as to secure his former wife the trial court alimony. obligations Concluding estate, not we any alimony obligation did affirm. J. divorced in 1996
Harvey K. Hawkins and Sharon Hawkins is an airline wife is marriage. pilot; after The husband at raised their five who remained home and high graduate school court the husband to trial, children. a bench the trial After pay premiums on life $300,000, the amount of with the beneficiary, wife until she receives retirement benefits from the airline. The husband maintain the amounts long as it would the wife with the total benefit that she alimony. would receive in If the husband dies while the inis equals remaining alimony force, the wife would retain a sum that *2 pay to which she is entitled and the excess amount to the husband’s estate.
Nearly ago, two decades this Court concluded that a trial court spouse carry order a to life insurance for the benefit of the other spouse.1 previously obligation We have held that this is ali- mony payments Citing because the number of is indefinite.2 the rule obligation pay periodic alimony that a court-ordered with the death of the to terminates
paying spouse,3 argues 4Mr.Hawkins that the improperly required payment periodic alimony to Mrs. Hawkins after his death. Ragland Ragland,4 we considered whether a trial court
could order one
retirement
to name the other
of a
plan.
rejected
argument
We
that the award
illegal
required
payment
because it
after his
Rather,
death.
this Court held that
the husband to elect
50-percent
option
plan
support
survivor
under his retirement
to
periodic alimony.
his former wife after his death was a valid award of
impose any duty
We reasoned that the trial court’s award did not
Ragland’s payments
plan
his estate because Mr.
would be made before his death.
to his retirement
Similarly,
the trial court’s award in this case does not
duty
pay periodic alimony.
on the husband’s estate to
All court-
on the life insurance
end with Mr. Hawkins’
retirement or death. If he were to die
retires,
before he
the insurance
company
support
would
the benefits to Mrs. Hawkins for her
after his death. We conclude that the trial court made a valid award
periodic alimony
required
when it
husband to maintain a life
for the benefit of his former wife.
except Carley,
All the
1
(260
871)
Ritchea,
(1979);
Ritchea v.
Whitaker,
Ga. 476
SE2d
see Andrews v.
(453
735) (1995) (affirming
Ga. 76
SE2d
purchase
annuity
to
wife).
(441
666) (1994)
But cf. Gardner v.
(holding
In my opinion, Georgia law does not authorize the trial court to periodic alimony beyond Hawkins, Mr. that he ordering maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of Ms. Hawkins. Accordingly, respectfully dissent.
Contrary to the majority opinion, Ritchea, neither Ritchea v. 871) (1979) Ga. 476 nor Whitaker, Andrews v. 735) (1995) supports the proposition “that a trial court
may order a spouse carry life insurance for the benefit of the other spouse.” (Majority opinion, p. Ritchea, supra (2), at 477 merely holds that a of a final divorce decree related to life insur- ance “is in full accord with the undisputed evidence and the verdict of the jury Thus, in the case.” only question addressed in Ritchea was whether the award was authorized as a matter of fact in that case, and that decision did not determine whether the award was or was not valid as a matter of Andrews, law this state. at 77 supra (3), holds that simply an obligation purchase an annuity is an award of periodic alimony, rather than a division Thus, of property. issue resolved Andrews related to the proper denomina- *3 tion of the award. Andrews did not deal with the underlying validity of the award itself. if even a trial court may require maintenance of a life (but
insurance see Gardner v. 666) (1994)), it not necessarily does follow that the trial court’s award here is authorized. The issue in this case is whether a trial court can a require obligated alimony maintain a life insurance policy to perpetuate of that alimony beyond the death of the obligated. The majority cites no case which authorizes the trial court to make such a requirement.
I agree with the majority that “the trial in court’s award this case does not duty on the husband’s estate to pay periodic alimony.” (Majority opinion, p. Furthermore, a spouse’s future obligation to on a life insurance consti- policy may tute a valid award v. periodic alimony. Sapp 238, 259 Ga. these observations are not relevant to the different issue of whether a trial court can order that the proceeds from the be pay “periodic alimony” used to to one spouse after the other spouse’s that, death. The view is prevailing while a trial court may impose to obtain life insurance for the security payment of sum or lump alimony for the payment of periodic alimony accruing up until the death of a former spouse, trial court may not require maintenance of such a policy where the effect is to payment of periodic alimony beyond (S.C. 34, Hardin, 365 SE2d Hardin v. spouse. the former (Fla. 1985); 637, App. 465 S2d McClung, v. 1987); McClung
App. 1997). this The rationale for & Supp. Annot., 59 ALR3d the death upon ceases liability alimony for view is prevailing is, Hardin, This rationale supra. v. Hardin spouse. supporting Winstead, 265 Ga. law. Winstead course, Georgia consistent (1995). purpose for doubt as to its leaves no room The trial court’s order policy: a life insurance to maintain Mr. Hawkins for Wife’s of insurance maintain said Husband shall with the total amounts to Wife benefit her until she receives she would receive benefit Hus- the death of In the event of ... retirement benefit. Wife, provided benefit band, upon receipt equal such sum as would shall retain company, and shall pay which she is entitled alimony to remaining of the Husband. to the estate any excess to an award This is tantamount provision (Emphasis supplied.) die death should he Mr. Hawkins’ alimony from and after of retire receipt Ms. Hawkins’ preceding the five-year period within (Fla. 1975); Blass, App. 316 S2d See Blass v. ment benefits. 1974). (Fla. Therefore, life Wilbur, 99, 100 App. 299 S2d Wilbur invalid, dissent respectfully judgment. of the trial court’s affirmance majority’s Roberts, for Margot appellant. S. Daniel, Daniel, appellee. R. Delores
McGinn *4 THE STATE. RILEY v.
S97A1429. Justice. Taylor, Shawn Shawn Anthony Riley, indicted grand jury The “by malice murder for the commission of and Julius Salter Kilkenny and also with the handgun” with a Wayne Phillips . . . G. shooting feet” to their “fists and by using assault aggravated commission of an testified for trial, Kilkenny and Salter Riley’s jury At Phillips. beat Riley, upon against verdicts guilty The returned State.