Court Opinion

ID: 9604425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:21:38.136298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:22.316036
License: Public Domain

Almand, Justice,
dissenting. Whether the order awarding additional attorney’s fees in January, 1957, at the conclusion of the trial on the issues of a total divorce and permanent alimony was or was not erroneous, depends upon the nature, effect, and consequences of the order of June 28, 1955, when the court on the plaintiff’s prayers for temporary alimony did not fix temporary alimony for the support of the plaintiff and the minor child, but approved the oral agreement between the parties as- to the amount of alimony the defendant would pay monthly to the plaintiff until the trial of the suit for .divorce and permanent, alimony. In this order, the. defendant was ordered to pay attor*204ney’s fees to plaintiff’s counsel “in the sum of $500 on account of attorney’s fees.” The defendant did not file any direct excepceptions to this order but complied with it by paying the $500 as directed by the order “on account of attorney’s fees.”
In his bill of exceptions, the defendant attempts to assign error on the order of June 28, 1955. He cannot now be heard to complain of this order. The defendant had the right to file direct exceptions to this order within 30 days from its rendition. Code § 6-903, as amended by Ga. L. 1946, p. 726 and Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dee. Sess., p. 279. See Walker v. Walker, 178 Ga. 663 (173 S. E. 828). That order, until it was modified or set aside, became the law of the case, and the defendant cannot now question its validity or its consequences. He complied with the order and cannot be permitted to question the authority of the court to award plaintiff’s counsel the sum of $500 “on account of attorney’s fees.”
The order of June 28, 1955, only approved the settlement of temporary alimony for the support of the wife and child. It left open for trial the question of permanent alimony. Even if this contract would have prevented the wife from seeking temporary alimony in a sum at variance with the agreement, the court on her petition had the authority to award attorney’s fees. Byrd v. Byrd, 157 Ga. 787 (122 S. E. 193). At the time when the agreement as to temporaiy alimony was approved by the court, the wife’s suit for divorce and permanent alimony was pending, and counsel fees are allowable on a suit for permanent alimony alone or in connection with a suit for divorce. Wise v. Wise, 157 Ga. 814 (3) (122 S. E. 210). In approving the agreement of the parties as to temporary alimony, the judge approved it with the further provision that the defendant should pay a stipulated sum on account of counsel fees. He had authority to approve the agreement in whole or in part, or to add further provisions. Amos v. Amos, 212 Ga. 670 (95 S. E. 2d 5). Having awarded a named sum “on account of attorney’s fees” in his order of June 28,1955, which order and its terms stood unreversed and unmodified at the time of the trial of the suit for permanent alimony and a divorce, the court had the power to award additional fees to counsel for the wife. No contention being made that the sum *205awarded was excessive, the judgment allowing such additional counsel fees was not erroneous and should be affirmed.

Wyatt, P. J., and Mobley, J., concur in this dissent.