Court Opinion

ID: 9585759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:03:39.610587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:14.485506
License: Public Domain

Bowles, Justice,
dissenting.
The question presented is whether or not the Acts of 1977, at page 312, are so repugnant or so inconsistent with the existing law set out in Code Ann. § 30-219 that they cannot stand together. The majority opinion does not contend that the prior statute has been repealed, except by implication. Although there is some conflict between the two Acts, it should be noted that the 1977 Act deals with "the grant of attorney’s fees as a part of the expenses of litigation made at any time during the pendency of the litigation, . . .” This would not be repugnant to the minimum attorney fee requirements of § 30-219 when applied to contempt citations brought after the litigation has been completed and a final judgment entered. The $25 minimum fee in such circumstances is modest at best, but its specific provision has not been repealed. It only applies when the husband has failed to pay "for no justifiable reason.” An unfair burden is placed on wives or children to have to pay attorney fees out of awards which are *60sometimes modest, when the husband or father offers no justifiable reason for nonpayment. It can be argued that a judge will not abuse his discretion in such instances, but he did in this case.
I respectfully dissent.