Brown v. Brown

Supreme Court of Georgia1923-06-07No. No. 3470

155 Ga. 722

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment finding the husband in contempt and ordering payment of accrued alimony within sixty days or imprisonment was affirmed.

Mrs. Minnie Brown sought temporary alimony and was granted a court order in February 1922 requiring her husband to pay specified sums plus $20 monthly. When the husband failed to comply, she filed a contempt petition in March 1922. The husband claimed he lacked the ability to pay due to advanced age, poverty, and illness that impaired his capacity to work. Evidence presented at the hearing on the contempt matter was contradictory regarding his actual financial capacity.

The trial court found the husband in contempt and ordered him to pay the accumulated alimony within sixty days or face imprisonment. On appeal, the court upheld this judgment, finding that the trial judge acted within proper discretion in determining contempt based on the conflicting evidence. The court noted that the husband had not requested a modification of the alimony amount and had not demonstrated any change in circumstances between the initial alimony hearing and the contempt proceedings.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a spouse can be held in contempt for failure to pay court-ordered alimony
Standard of review for contempt findings based on conflicting evidence regarding ability to pay
Whether changed circumstances must be shown to challenge an existing alimony order

Procedural posture

The case came before the appellate court on review of a contempt judgment entered by the trial court following the husband's alleged non-compliance with a temporary alimony order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Beok, P. J.

Mrs. Minnie Brown made application for temporary alimony at the January term, 1922, of the court. The cause came on for a hearing on February 1, 1922, and the court granted an order requiring the husband to pay certain sums as alimony and attorney’s fees, and thereafter to pay monthly the sum of $20 as .temporary alimony, until the final disposition of the case. On March 31, 1922, alleging the failure on the part of the respondent to comply with the order of the court, the applicant filed her petition, setting forth the facts, and praying that an attachment for contempt be issued against her husband, and that he be required to show cause why he had not complied with the order, and in default thereof that he be punished for contempt. Upon this petition an order requiring the respondent to show cause was issued; and he thereupon filed an answer alleging his inability to comply with the order of the court, on account of age, poverty, and disease, which prevented him from laboring at his trade effectively. The evidence at the hearing was conflicting as to the defendant’s ability to comply with the order of the court; and the court adjudged the defendant in contempt, and ordered him to pay the amount of alimony that had accrued within sixty days, or, in default thereof, directed the sheriff to imprison him in the common jail until he should pay it, or until the further order of the court. Reid: Upon conflicting evidence there was no abuse of discretion in adjudging the defendant in contempt, and in requiring that unless the accrued alimony be paid within sixty days he be imprisoned. The order granted upon the hearing of the application for alimony was an adjudication as to the amount of alimony that should be allowed under the circumstances as they existed; and there is no application for a reduction of that amount, nor a contention that there has been a change in the financial or physical condition of the respondent between the hearing of the application for alimony and the institution of the contempt proceedings.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.