Summary
In Lord v. Lord, 231 Ga. 164 (200 S.E.2d 759) (1973), the rule against proration was applied because the decree provided no mathematical basis for the one-half proration being sought.
Summary of this case from Burns v. RiversOpinion
28126.
SUBMITTED JULY 27, 1973.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 5, 1973. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 4, 1973.
Contempt. Gwinnett Superior Court. Before Judge Merritt.
Glyndon C. Pruitt, for appellant.
Joseph E. Cheeley, for appellee.
Dick Lord was held in contempt of court for failure to pay alimony and child support. The appeal is from this judgment. Held:
1. The appellant was ordered by the divorce decree to pay as alimony and child support the sum of $40 per week. He contends that since his child is now of the age of majority he should only be required to pay $20 per week as alimony. There is no merit in this contention. In Adams v. Adams, 225 Ga. 375 ( 169 S.E.2d 160) this court said: "Such a decree `cannot be prorated among the wife and children so as to separate the amount awarded to the wife and to the children,' and it does not authorize the pro rata reduction in the amount to be paid to the wife when one of the children marries, becomes self-supporting, or reaches the age of majority. Blalock v. Blalock, 214 Ga. 586 (4) ( 105 S.E.2d 721)."
2. The court properly found the appellant in contempt for wilfully failing to make payments on the alimony award.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.