Mathews v. Mathews

4 Citing cases

  1. Ensley v. Ensley

    239 Ga. 860 (Ga. 1977)   Cited 36 times
    In Ensley v. Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 238 S.E.2d 920 (1977), however, the Georgia Supreme Court held that criminal contempt was an available sanction for repeated failures to pay court-ordered alimony and child support.

    There is at least one decision, however, holding that the sanction of criminal contempt is not available to punish disobedience to an alimony award. Mathews v. Mathews, 222 Ga. 311 (3) ( 149 S.E.2d 666) (1966). In Mathews, the court reasoned that unconditional imprisonment for nonpayment of alimony would constitute imprisonment for debt.

  2. Brown v. Brown

    237 Ga. 122 (Ga. 1976)   Cited 12 times

    Therefore, a husband may not be imprisoned for failure to pay alimony unless it is first found that he has the ability to pay but merely refuses to do so. In such circumstances, the contemnor may be imprisoned only under a conditional sentence pending the contemnor purging himself by paying such sums as the evidence shows he is able to pay. Mathews v. Mathews, 222 Ga. 311 ( 149 S.E.2d 666) (1966). There is no error in the trial court setting a determinable sentence rather than an indefinite one as long as the determinable sentence is made to cease upon the contemnor purging himself of contempt.

  3. Stanton v. Stanton

    157 S.E.2d 453 (Ga. 1967)   Cited 2 times

    Contempt proceedings for refusal to abide by alimony decrees authorize only conditional punishment pending the contemnor purging himself by paying such sums as he is able as shown by the evidence. See Davis v. Davis, 138 Ga. 8, 11-12 ( 74 S.E. 830); McCullough v. McCullough, 208 Ga. 776, 778-779 ( 69 S.E.2d 764) ; Mathews v. Mathews, 222 Ga. 311, 312 ( 149 S.E.2d 666); 24 AmJur2d 876, 877, Divorce and Separation, § 768; 27B CJS 122, Divorce, § 262 (h). For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, with direction that the trial judge recite in his judgment the amount due and the method by which appellant may purge himself.

  4. City of Macon v. Smith

    160 S.E.2d 622 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 27 times
    Limiting stipulation to matters regarding which parties agreed where plaintiff failed to prove municipal ordinance

    We disagree with defendant city's contention that the corrective measures were not sufficiently taken, and consequently the holdings of Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Coxwell, 93 Ga. App. 159 (10), supra, Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. McDonald, 103 Ga. App. 328 (3) ( 119 S.E.2d 356) and Ga. Power Co. v. Puckett, 181 Ga. 386, 393 (3-5), supra, where little or no corrective action was taken, are not in conflict with but support, what we here hold. See also Mathews v. Mathews, 222 Ga. 311 (2) ( 149 S.E.2d 666). Enumeration of error 2 is without merit.