From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fech v. Fech

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jun 28, 1978
247 S.E.2d 79 (Ga. 1978)

Summary

In Fech v. Fech, 241 Ga. 613 (247 S.E.2d 79) (1978), construing a 1974 agreement, we held that "... where the language is couched in the present tense, without reference to the future, there is no waiver of the right to modify.

Summary of this case from Kletcke v. Kletcke

Opinion

33689.

SUBMITTED JUNE 20, 1978.

DECIDED JUNE 28, 1978. REHEARING DENIED JULY 20, 1978.

Modification of alimony. Clarke Superior Court. Before Judge Barrow.

Sam S. Harben, Jr., for appellant.

Jim Hudson, for appellee.


Duane V. Fech brought an action to modify his alimony and child support obligations under a 1974 divorce decree in which the divorce court had incorporated an agreement between the parties. At the modification trial, the court directed a partial verdict against the husband, finding a waiver of the right to modify the alimony award in the divorce agreement. The jury found in favor of the wife on the issue of modification of the child support and refused to reduce those payments. Fech appeals the grant of the partial directed verdict. We reverse.

The agreement incorporated in the decree provided: "This Agreement constitutes full and final settlement and satisfaction of any and all claims or demands which either party has against the other, and is in full and final settlement of any and all questions of property division, alimony, maintenance and support. This Agreement inures to the benefit of and is binding on the parties, their heirs and personal representatives." We find no waiver. The language "full and final settlement" is insufficient alone to constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver. McLoughlin v. McLoughlin, 234 Ga. 259 ( 214 S.E.2d 925) (1975). We have also held that where the language is couched in the present tense, without reference to the future, there is no waiver of the right to modify. Kitfield v. Kitfield, 237 Ga. 184 ( 227 S.E.2d 9) (1976); McLoughlin v. McLoughlin, supra; Garcia v. Garcia, 232 Ga. 869 ( 209 S.E.2d 201) (1974). Compare Wood v. Wood, 237 Ga. 335 ( 227 S.E.2d 375) (1976); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 235 Ga. 101 ( 218 S.E.2d 747) (1975); Ivey v. Ivey, 234 Ga. 532 ( 216 S.E.2d 827) (1975) (waiver of right to modify found). The trial court erred in directing the partial directed verdict regarding the modification of alimony.

Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.


SUBMITTED JUNE 20, 1978 — DECIDED JUNE 28, 1978 — REHEARING DENIED JULY 20, 1978.


Summaries of

Fech v. Fech

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jun 28, 1978
247 S.E.2d 79 (Ga. 1978)

In Fech v. Fech, 241 Ga. 613 (247 S.E.2d 79) (1978), construing a 1974 agreement, we held that "... where the language is couched in the present tense, without reference to the future, there is no waiver of the right to modify.

Summary of this case from Kletcke v. Kletcke
Case details for

Fech v. Fech

Case Details

Full title:FECH v. FECH

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Jun 28, 1978

Citations

247 S.E.2d 79 (Ga. 1978)
247 S.E.2d 79

Citing Cases

Templeton v. Templeton

" We have also held "where the language is couched in the present tense, without reference to the future,…

Oliver v. Oliver

This does not show a clear intention to waive statutory modification. Cowan v. Cowan, 243 Ga. 25 ( 252 S.E.2d…