Court Opinion

ID: 9853872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:56:34.553345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:13.027992
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.
In this divorce action, the trial court ordered the husband to pay alimony of $5,000 per month for five years, granted the wife half of the current value of the husband’s retirement plan, and ordered the husband to name the wife as beneficiary of his life insurance policy for five years until she began receiving retirement benefits. We granted the husband’s discretionary application to consider whether the trial court erred in requiring the husband to maintain a life insurance policy with his former wife as beneficiary to secure his obligations to pay periodic alimony. Concluding that the trial court did not impose any alimony obligation on the husband’s estate, we affirm.
Harvey K. Hawkins and Sharon J. Hawkins divorced in 1996 after 31 years of marriage. The husband is an airline pilot; the wife is a high school graduate who remained at home and raised their five children. After a bench trial, the trial court ordered the husband to *638pay premiums on life insurance in the amount of $300,000, with the wife as beneficiary, until she receives retirement benefits from the airline. The husband may maintain the policy in decreasing amounts so long as it would provide the wife with the total benefit that she would receive in alimony. If the husband dies while the policy is in force, the wife would retain a sum that equals the remaining alimony to which she is entitled and pay the excess amount to the husband’s estate.
Nearly two decades ago, this Court concluded that a trial court may order a spouse to carry life insurance for the benefit of the other spouse.1 We have previously held that this obligation is periodic alimony because the number of payments is indefinite.2 Citing the rule that a court-ordered obligation to pay periodic alimony terminates with the death of the paying spouse,3
4Mr. Hawkins argues that the trial court improperly required the payment of periodic alimony to Mrs. Hawkins after his death.
In Ragland v. Ragland,4 we considered whether a trial court could order one spouse to name the other spouse as beneficiary of a retirement plan. We rejected the husband’s argument that the award was illegal because it required the payment of alimony after his death. Rather, this Court held that requiring the husband to elect the 50-percent survivor option under his retirement plan to support his former wife after his death was a valid award of periodic alimony. We reasoned that the trial court’s award did not impose any duty on his estate because Mr. Ragland’s payments to his retirement plan would be made before his death.
Similarly, the trial court’s award in this case does not impose a duty on the husband’s estate to pay periodic alimony. All court-ordered premiums on the life insurance policy end with Mr. Hawkins’ retirement or death. If he were to die before he retires, the insurance company would pay the benefits to Mrs. Hawkins for her support after his death. We conclude that the trial court made a valid award of periodic alimony when it required the husband to maintain a life insurance policy for five years for the benefit of his former wife.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Carley, J, 
*639
who dissents.

 Ritchea v. Ritchea, 244 Ga. 476 (260 SE2d 871) (1979); see Andrews v. Whitaker, 265 Ga. 76 (453 SE2d 735) (1995) (affirming a husband’s obligation to purchase an annuity for his wife). But cf. Gardner v. Gardner, 264 Ga. 138 (441 SE2d 666) (1994) (holding that trial court cannot order husband to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of the children).

 Sapp v. Sapp, 259 Ga. 238 (378 SE2d 674) (1989); see Dillard v. Dillard, 265 Ga. 478 (458 SE2d 102) (1995) (alimony payments were periodic alimony when they terminated on the remarriage of the receiving spouse).

 Winstead v. Winstead, 265 Ga. 690 (461 SE2d 538) (1995).

 266 Ga. 643 (469 SE2d 658) (1996).