Doritis v. Doritis: the court engaged in impermissible modification as it conditioned the ex-husband’s receipt of certain house proceeds under the decree.
By Sarah McCormack, family lawyer
A trial court did not impermissibly modify the parties’ divorce decree in a contempt action where:
- the parties had agreed that Wife would receive certain pieces of jewelry;
- the trial court found such jewelry to be worth $40,000.00; and
- in light of the Ex-Husband’s selling of certain pieces of jewelry, the trial court ordered that the remaining pieces be appraised and that the Ex-Husband pay his Ex-Wife the difference between $40,000.00 and the value of the remaining appraised pieces.
The trial court did engage in such impermissible modification, however, where it conditioned the Ex-Husband’s receipt of certain house proceeds under the decree upon his payment to his Ex-Wife for the missing jewelry. Such a pre-condition did not exist in the original decree.
Sarah McCormack practices family law with the Georgia law firm of Kessler & Solominay.
New Asset Recovery Techniques in Divorce CasesPublished on: