Case Title: Estlund v. Estlund

Citation: 260 Ga. 225, 391 S.E.2d 763

Docket Number: S90A0572

State: georgia

Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Date: 1990-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
260 Ga. 225 (1990) 391 S.E.2d 763 ESTLUND v. ESTLUND. S90A0572. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided May 31, 1990. Stephen P. Enloe, for appellant. *227 Chesnut & Livingston, Tom Pye, for appellee. SMITH, Presiding Justice. We granted Mr. Estlund's application for discretionary appeal to consider "whether the award of the home to the wife is a form of alimony which would be subject to modification under OCGA § 19-6-19." The trial court did not err in dismissing Mr. Estlund's complaint seeking modification of a divorce decree in which Mrs. Estlund was awarded title to the marital home until she remarried, sold the home, or died. The award of the house to the wife was an award of lump sum alimony and is not subject to modification. Lyons v. Lyons, 244 Ga. 619, 620 (261 SE2d 395) (1979). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. WELTNER, Justice, concurring. I agree with the result, but write separately to reiterate a familiar analysis. 1. The issue is "whether the award of the home to the wife is a form of alimony which would be subject to modification under OCGA § 19-6-19." 2. Pursuant to an agreement, the divorce decree provides in pertinent part: *226 said sale.... 3. The husband relies upon the analysis contained in the concurring opinion in Rooks v. Rooks, 252 Ga. 11, 13-19 (311 SE2d 169) (1984), for the proposition that the award of this home is one terminable by operation of law because the beneficial use of the home is determined by the occurrence of specified events. The concurrence stated: Id. at 17. 4. In Spivey v. McClellan, 259 Ga. 181 (378 SE2d 123) (1989), a unanimous court adopted the concept of "terminable allocations." We stated: Id. at 182, n. 1. 5. As the house is not an economic allocation that "must be paid or delivered in the future," it is not a terminable allocation under the analysis of Rooks and Spivey. The trial court was correct in its determination: "[T]he award of the residence to the wife was not a periodic payment of alimony which would support a modification action."