Arthur v. Arthur

The trial court's judgment in a divorce action failed to contain sufficient findings of fact to clarify its exercise of discretion in arriving at the equitable division of marital property, and the husband made a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This appeal is from the grant of a discretionary application pursuant to Rule 34 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Appellant Troy Lee Arthur and appellee Vanessa Vickers Arthur were married in April 1995 and are the parents of two minor boys. Husband filed for divorce in October 2010, with Wife filing a counterclaim for divorce shortly thereafter. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered the final judgment and decree on January 31, 2012 “final judgment”, that awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, with Wife given primary physical custody and ultimate decision-making authority.

The final judgment also made an equitable division of marital property that, among other things, awarded the marital home to Wife after finding that Husband stated he did not want it. Without making a finding regarding the value of the marital estate, the final judgment made the award of the marital home subject to Wife’s obligation to assume and hold Husband harmless from the existing indebtedness on the property. It also required Wife to use her best effort to refinance the indebtedness in order to remove Husband from the indebtedness and generate funds to pay Husband $20,000 for his interest in the marital home and, if not successful in refinancing the home, then “in the event the house is sold in the future” to pay said sum to Husband with interest from the date of the decree. The final judgment acknowledged that the parties previously had divided a portion of the remaining marital property and announced in court an agreement had been reached regarding the division of the remainder of the marital property. Neither party was awarded alimony. Husband filed a motion for new trial which was denied.

Arthur v. Arthur

The trial court's judgment in a divorce action failed to contain sufficient findings of fact to clarify its exercise of discretion in arriving at the equitable division of marital property, and the husband made a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report