Court Opinion

ID: 9781408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:36:47.753733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:26.192537
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I agree that the trial court properly found the husband was in contempt, I dissent to the reversal of the trial court’s conditions for the husband to purge himself of contempt. The majority has taken away the discretion of the trial court to enforce its own contempt orders, except by requiring jail time. In the end, the parties to a divorce action would be better served by permitting trial courts flexibility in interpreting the settlement to carry out the couple’s intent, without having to resort to incarceration of the contumacious party.
In this case, the trial court’s order did not improperly modify the divorce decree. Instead, the trial court was attempting to enforce the agreement by imposing reasonable conditions that required the husband to carry out his contractual obligations. Originally the parties intended to relieve the wife of any mortgage obligation and give her one-half of the equity in the house at the time of its sale or refinancing. Since the house has not been sold or refinanced, in large *60part due to the husband’s actions in buying a second home, the trial court through its contempt order required the husband to pay down the mortgage to determine whether refinancing would be possible and to indemnify the wife for any deficiency in the sale of the home. Because the trial court imposed reasonable conditions that were designed to place the parties in the position they would have occupied had the husband timely complied with the settlement agreement, I conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Cason v. Cason, 281 Ga. 296 (1) (637 SE2d 716) (2006) (construing award of farm cooperative’s equity accounts to wife as applying to stock and cash that husband received when the cooperative converted to a for-profit corporation); Taylor v. Taylor, 248 Ga. 723 (285 SE2d 695) (1982) (concluding trial court imposed reasonable conditions when it required husband to pay the wife one-half of the fair rental value of the garage property or vacate the property, place it on the market for sale, and divide the proceeds from the sale equally).
Decided May 7, 2012.
Jacquelyn F. Luther, for appellant.
Berk & Moss, Stephen J. Berk, for appellee.