Court Opinion

ID: 9596997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:54:53.111012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:36.502427
License: Public Domain

Hall, Justice.
The sole question presented on this appeal from a divorce and alimony judgment entered by the trial court sitting by stipulation without a jury, is the claimed excessiveness of the permanent alimony award. We have reviewed the record, and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in making the challenged award. See Warner v. Warner, 234 Ga. 757 (218 SE2d 29) (1975); Thomas v. Thomas, 233 Ga. 916 (213 SE2d 877) (1975); Knighton v. Knighton, 230 Ga. 506 (197 SE2d 726) (1973); Brock v. Brock, 228 Ga. 500 (186 SE2d 537) (1972).
Appellee’s motions to dismiss the appeal, and for ten percent damages under Code Ann. § 6-1801, are denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who dissents as to the denial of damages under *51Code Ann. § 6-1801.
Argued May 10, 1976
Decided June 8, 1976.
George P. Wright, for appellant.
Benjamin Zeesman, for appellee.