Court Opinion

ID: 9856672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:55:11.328636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:20.981497
License: Public Domain

Bowles, Justice,
dissenting.
Bryan v. Bryan, 242 Ga. 826 (251 SE2d566) (1979) has no applicability to this case. Bryan did not involve a vested property right to alimony which was to be removed upon proof of adultery. The adultery evidence was offered on the issue of alimony initially. Perhaps in such a case a statement denying the existence of a "vested right to commit adultery” is appropriate.
In the case at bar, as in McClain v. McClain, 241 Ga. 422 (246 SE2d 187) (1978), the vested right is in the judgment not being subject to modification except upon grounds which existed at the time of the judgment. By stating that it is following Bryan, the majority is impliedly holding that there is no "vested right to cohabit” although that is not the alleged vested right in issue.
For these reasons, I dissent to the majority’s applying the live in lover statute retroactively.
I am authorized to state that Justice Jordan joins in this dissent.