Further, he claims that the award's structure in providing for periodic payments until a stated sum certain is paid has consistently been held under Georgia law to be a property settlement. See Taulbee v. Taulbee, 243 Ga. 52, 252 S.E.2d 481 (1979). In addition, Plaintiff contends that an intent to settle property rights is expressed when such payments, as in this case, continue irrespective of death or remarriage.
]" Nash v. Nash, supra at 750 (1). See also Taulbee v. Taulbee, 243 Ga. 52, 53 ( 252 SE2d 481) (1979); Dan E. McConaughey, Ga. Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody § 16-6, p. 689 (2007-2008 ed.). In this case, application of either rule shows as a matter of law that the obligation which Appellant seeks to modify constitutes lump sum alimony.
One-time payments, whether alimony, payments of corpus or divisions of the separate property of the parties, are not subject to revision under Code Ann. § 30-220. Taulbee v. Taulbee, 243 Ga. 52 ( 252 S.E.2d 481) (1979). Only periodic payments of permanent alimony are subject to revision under Code Ann. § 30-220; divisions of property and periodic payments from the corpus of the payor's estate are not revisable.
This is clearly an award of lump sum alimony and is not subject to modification under Code Ann. § 30-222. Taulbee v. Taulbee, 243 Ga. 52 ( 252 S.E.2d 481) (1979). Title to the home is in the husband.