"Sedehi v. Chamberlin , 344 Ga. App. 512, 522 (1), 811 S.E.2d 24 (2018).Appling v. Tatum , 295 Ga. App. 78, 83 (4), 670 S.E.2d 795 (2008) (punctuation omitted).

" (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sedehi v. Chamberlin , 344 Ga. App. 512, 516, 811 S.E.2d 24 (2018). So viewed, the record shows that Jamie and Travis married in June 2002 and have three minor children.

Both the above-emphasized language and our case law make clear, however, that an objection to relief not requested in a complaint will be sustained where the objecting party had insufficient notice of that claim prior to trial. See Sedehi v. Chamberlin, 344 Ga. App. 512, 516-517 (1), 811 S.E.2d 24 (2018) (in an action for divorce, the trial court erred in awarding alimony to the wife, who had counterclaimed for an annulment and damages for fraud; "throughout discovery and during trial, [the wife] affirmatively indicated that she sought only damages for fraud, regardless of whether the court rejected her claim for an annulment,’’and therefore the husband had no notice that alimony was an issue) (emphasis omitted). See also Hackbart v. Hackbart, 272 Ga. 26, 26-27, 526 S.E.2d 840 (2000)(where a party neither files a responsive pleading nor appears at trial, the "trial court may not award relief beyond sought that in the complaint" and the "complaint may not be amended to conform to the evidence," as the absent party had no notice that such relief was a possibility); Doggy v. Doggy, 366 Ga. App. 320, 321 (1), 882 S.E.2d 542 (2022) (same).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's award of alimony.SeeHarris v. Harris , 258 Ga. 496, 497, 371 S.E.2d 399 (1988) (reversing a judgment that granted the parties’ house to the petitioner for a divorce when the defendant was not put on notice by the complaint that he would have to defend against the wife's claim to the marital home); Sedehi v. Chamberlin , 344 Ga. App. 512, 520-21 (1), 811 S.E.2d 24 (2018) (physical precedent as to Division 2 only) (holding that because the wife never sought alimony in her pleadings or at trial, husband had no meaningful opportunity to be heard or prepare defense regarding trial court's alimony award at conclusion of divorce proceeding, and thus alimony award violated husband's due-process rights); see alsoLambert v. Gilmer , 228 Ga. 774, 774-76, 187 S.E.2d 855 (1972) (holding that an award of alimony to the wife in a divorce judgment was void because the husband had no notice that the issue of alimony would be tried and gave no express or implied consent to litigating that issue at trial); Pray v. Pray , 223 Ga. 215, 215-16, 154 S.E.2d 208 (1967) (finding that in absence of any prayer for alimony in wife's answer in divorce case, wife was not entitled to alimony under her prayer for general relief). 3.

Lawrence , 286 Ga. at 313-14 (4), 687 S.E.2d 421.See Sedehi v. Chamberlin , 344 Ga. App. 512, 516, 811 S.E.2d 24 (2018) (noting that "this Court properly gives due deference to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses" (punctuation omitted)).See Lawrence , 286 Ga. at 313-14 (4), 687 S.E.2d 421 (affirming trial court's enforcement of antenuptial agreement in light of the extensive evidence in the record showing wife's familiarity with husband's business dealings and personal financial condition, garnered over the course of a lengthy premarital relationship including over two years of cohabitation); Dove v. Dove , 285 Ga. 647, 651 (7), 680 S.E.2d 839 (2009) (holding that husband's failure to disclose his income when he and his wife executed the antenuptial agreement did not constitute non-disclosure of material facts so as to render the agreement unenforceable, as the financial statement that the husband provided to his wife revealed him to be a wealthy individual with significant income-producing assets, and the wife lived with him for four years before the antenuptia