Court Opinion

ID: 9588868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:39:23.38074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:34.418622
License: Public Domain

Ingram, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the judgment. In my opinion, it was error *104for the trial court to hear evidence at the interlocutory hearing on June 20, 1975, on the grounds of the divorce. The complaint was filed on May 27, 1975, and served on May 29,1975. In my view, the trial judge had no authority to hear evidence on the divorce at the interlocutory hearing, even with the consent of the parties. See Code Ann. § 81A-140 (b), and Bradberry v. Bradberry, 232 Ga. 651, 653 (208 SE2d 469) (1974). Of course, the trial court was authorized to consider the final divorce on August 14, 1975, but no evidence on the divorce was introduced at that time and, in my opinion, the law still requires that "the allegations of the pleadings shall be established by evidence.” (Emphasis supplied.) See Code Ann. § 30-113. However, the error was harmless as the trial court did not enter the final decree until the case was ripe and it was based on the earlier testimony of both parties. The fact that evidence of the divorce was heard prematurely under the statute is insufficient to set it aside in this case because neither party is in a position to complain about it in view of their agreement and conduct at the interlocutory hearing. Therefore, I concur in Divisions 1 and 2 of the majority opinion and in the judgment affirming the trial court.