Title: Allen v. Allen

State: georgia

Issuer: Georgia Supreme Court

Document:

260 Ga. 777 (1991) 400 S.E.2d 15 ALLEN v. ALLEN. S90A1626. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided February 7, 1991. Lisa H. Richardson, for appellant. Alembik, Fine & Callner, Bruce W. Callner, Kathy L. Portnoy, for appellee. WELTNER, Justice. The trial court directed that the question of the enforceability of a settlement agreement be submitted to a jury. We granted the husband's application for discretionary review of this issue. 1. The trial court, relying upon OCGA § 19-5-1, held that the wife was entitled to a jury trial as follows: The [wife] insists that the contract, if any, was procured 2. The following authorities are controlling: (a) "Proceedings for a divorce and for alimony have always, under the practice in this State, been regarded as equitable." Rogers v. Rogers, 103 Ga. 763, 765 (30 SE 659) (1898). 3. It is clear from these precedents that the superior court judge presiding over a divorce case exercises all of the traditional powers of chancellor in equity, except as otherwise provided by law.[2] We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with these authorities. *779 Case remanded. All the Justices concur. [1] See also Curry v. Curry, 260 Ga. 302, 303 (392 SE2d 879) (1990): "Scherer specifies that the trial judge shall determine whether or not to enforce the agreement." Note that the holding of Cousins v. Cousins, 253 Ga. 30 (315 SE2d 420) (1984) (meaning and effect of settlement agreement determined according to usual rules for construction of contracts) is not contradictory to Scherer. [2] In Jones v. Dougherty, 10 Ga. 273, 281 (1851), Justice Lumpkin stated: We ... held [in Beall v. The Surviving Executors of Fox, 4 Ga. 425, 426 (1848)], and I doubt not correctly, that we have not only adopted the whole system of English jurisprudence, Common Law, and Chancery, suited to our condition and circumstances, but that we have framed the necessary judicial machinery to give to that system a practical and beneficial effect, and that such is the office and duty of a Court of Equity, and such was the object of the Legislature of 1799, in conferring Equity powers upon the Superior Courts.