Court Opinion

ID: 9617525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:56:59.970712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:11.050435
License: Public Domain

Bell, Justice.
We granted a discretionary application in this case to determine whether the trial court, sitting as the trier of fact without a jury, erroneously awarded any of the husband’s separate personal property by way of equitable division, and, if so, whether such an award was reversible error. We find that the court did err, and that the judgment must be reversed because of the error.
1. We start with the principle that under Stokes v. Stokes, 246 Ga. 765 (273 SE2d 169) (1980), “only the real and personal property and assets acquired by the parties during marriage is subject to equitable property division.” Moore v. Moore, 249 Ga. 27, 28 (2) (287 SE2d 185) (1982). More specifically, a property interest that is brought into the marriage by a spouse is not subject to equitable property division. Bailey v. Bailey, 250 Ga. 15 (295 SE2d 304) (1982). Likewise, “property acquired during the marriage by either party by gift, inheritance, bequest or devise remains the separate property of the party that acquired it, and is not subject to equitable division.” Id. Accord Campbell v. Campbell, 255 Ga. 461 (339 SE2d 591) (1986).
In the instant case, it is apparent that the trial court purported to equitably divide a substantial amount of personal property that was in fact the husband’s separate property.1 Thus, under Stokes and its progeny, the trial court erred in the course of equitably dividing the personal property of the spouses.
2. The remaining question is whether the error necessitates reversal. The wife argues that any error in equitably dividing the personal *132property is harmless because the trial court could have allocated the same property to her as alimony.
However, we disagree. The purpose behind the doctrine of equitable property division
is to assure that property accumulated during the marriage be fairly distributed between the parties. Although property not accumulated during the marriage and belonging to one or the other party may be taken into account in deciding questions of alimony and, indeed, the equities of the division of the marital assets, this separate property is itself not subject to division. [Emphasis supplied.]
Campbell v. Campbell, supra, 255 Ga. at 462.
To hold that a trial court may disregard the separate and marital property dichotomy in awarding equitable property division, on the basis that the court can, if it chooses, award the same separate property as alimony, would erode the distinctions between separate and marital property and between equitable division and alimony. We decline to so hold, and we therefore find that the error of the court in this case requires reversing the judgment and remanding this case for entry of a new judgment consistent with this opinion.2 Cf. Thomas v. Thomas, 259 Ga. 73 (377 SE2d 666) (1989). But cf. Rooks v. Rooks, 252 Ga. 11, 13-19 (311 SE2d 169) (1984) (concurrence of Weltner, J.).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., who dissents.

 The exact extent to which the court encroached on the husband’s separate personal property is uncertain, as the court did not enter preliminary findings classifying the spouses’ personal property as separate and marital. Moreover, the proper classification of many items of personal property belonging to the spouses turned on questions of witness credibility.

 The new judgment should include findings classifying the personal property of the spouses according to whether it is separate or marital property, as a prerequisite for any award of equitable division of that property. The trial court may, of course, reconsider its other allocations for equitable division and alimony in the light of its revision of the equitable division of personal property.