From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brock v. Brock

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jan 6, 1972
186 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. 1972)

Opinion

26749.

ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1971.

DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1972.

Divorce. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Hubert.

Daniel C. B. Levy, for appellant.

William Lewis Spearman, for appellee.


At a hearing before a trial judge in a divorce and alimony case on the question of custody of the minor children of the parties and what amount is to be allowed to the wife as temporary alimony for the support of herself and the children, the trial judge is the sole trior of the facts and is vested with a broad discretion which will not be controlled by this court unless manifestly abused. Smith v. Smith, 125 Ga. 384 ( 53 S.E. 958); Brown v. Brown, 159 Ga. 323 ( 125 S.E. 713); Caswell v. Caswell, 179 Ga. 676 ( 177 S.E. 247); Braswell v. Braswell, 198 Ga. 753 (1) ( 32 S.E.2d 773); Childs v. Childs, 203 Ga. 9 (1) ( 45 S.E.2d 418); Brannen v. Brannen, 208 Ga. 88 (1) ( 65 S.E.2d 161). In this case, the evidence authorized a finding that the husband had a gross annual income in excess of $25,000, and the award of the family home and its furnishings and two of the three automobiles owned by the husband to the wife, for the use of herself and their three children, together with allowances for mortgage payments, insurance and support for the children, totaling slightly less than $800 per month, was not excessive or an abuse of discretion.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1971 — DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1972.


Summaries of

Brock v. Brock

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jan 6, 1972
186 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. 1972)
Case details for

Brock v. Brock

Case Details

Full title:BROCK v. BROCK

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Jan 6, 1972

Citations

186 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. 1972)
186 S.E.2d 537

Citing Cases

Smith v. Smith

See Mulcay v. Mulcay, 223 Ga. 309 (1) ( 154 S.E.2d 607) (1967). See also Golden v. Golden, 230 Ga. 867 (4) (…

Rea v. Rea

We have reviewed the record, and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in making the…