Case ID: ga_261/html/0286-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, Presiding Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

S91A0053.
    HARPER v. SMITH.
    (404 SE2d 120)
   Smith, Presiding Justice.

The parties were divorced on September 22, 1989 and on January 25, 1990 the appellant, Mrs. Harper, filed a contempt action against the appellee, Mr. Smith. The appellee answered and counterclaimed seeking to have portions of the original divorce decree vacated. The trial court vacated a part of the decree. We granted the appellant’s application for discretionary appeal and requested the parties to address the issue of whether the trial court erred “by striking the promissory-note requirement from the divorce decree.” We hold that the trial court did err, and we reverse.

A trial court has no authority, in a contempt proceeding, to modify a final judgment and divorce decree. Sells v. Eilender, 251 Ga. 463 (306 SE2d 662) (1983). That portion of the trial court order that vacated the promissory-note requirement was a modification of the final judgment and decree and must be reversed. The remaining portions of the contempt order are unaffected.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Decided May 15, 1991 —

Reconsideration denied June 7, 1991.

Shelby A. Outlaw, for appellant.

Wallace & Moss, Howard P. Wallace, for appellee.