Court Opinion

ID: 9847026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:52:27.664001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:59.191664
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
concurring.
I write to stress the differences between the self-executing provision in this case and the provision in Quillen v. Quillen, 265 Ga. 779 (462 SE2d 750) (1995) (Hunstein, J., dissenting). In Quillen the challenged provision granted the husband unfettered discretion to cease unilaterally the payment of alimony upon his subjective determination that the wife was cohabiting with another. Because the various factors that might play into the husband’s decision to exercise the provision could not be foreseen at the time the provision was incorporated into the divorce decree, the provision acted to divest the trial court of supervision over its decree. Thus, I could not agree to its enforcement. In contrast, the self-executing provision in this case is a standard escalation clause wherein a fixed base amount of support is subject to an objective, quantifiable change at specified times, which eliminates any subjective application of the provision. This provision thus allows the trial court, when rendering a judgment that incorporates the settlement agreement, to rule with a full appreciation of the consequences thereof on the parties. Accordingly, I concur fully in its enforcement.