Albert and Brenda Wier were married in 1986. It was the second marriage for both of them. The parties separated in 2005, and Brenda sued Albert for divorce later that year. Following a trial, the jury awarded Brenda $200,000 as lump sum property division and $600,000 as lump sum alimony. The property division award was to be paid within 15 days; the alimony award was to be paid within 90 days. Judgment was entered accordingly. Albert sought, and we granted, discretionary review pursuant to this Court’s pilot project in domestic cases. 1. Albert asserts the trial court committed reversible error in giving a pattern charge which authorized the jury to consider, inter alia,1 “other relevant factors” which it deemed to be “equitable and proper” in determining the amount of alimony. See OCGA § 19-6-5 a 8. In this regard, Albert points out that although conduct is relevant to alimony entitlement, OCGA § 19-6-1 c, conduct is not relevant in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded. See McCurry v. McCurry , 223 Ga. 334 155 SE2d 378 1967; Harper v. Harper , 220 Ga. 770 141 SE2d 403 1965. Completing the argument, Albert posits that the trial court’s charge improperly permitted the jury to consider his misconduct in determining the amount of alimony. We need not reach this argument because Albert failed to object to the trial court’s charge. The failure to raise an objection to the charge precludes review on appeal unless it can be said that the charge was substantially erroneous and “harmful as a matter of law.” OCGA § 5-5-24 c. Because the charge did not instruct the jury that it could consider the conduct or misconduct of the parties in fixing the amount of alimony, the charge was not substantially erroneous. Compare McCurry , supra.
2. After retiring to deliberate, the jury posed this question to the trial court: “If we give one lump sum, does it include alimony and real property.” Albert contends the trial court erred by responding that the jury should look to the verdict form for guidance. However, when the trial court proposed to respond in that manner, Albert’s counsel readily agreed that this was a good course of action.2 It follows that this enumeration of error presents nothing for review. See Moody v. Dykes , 269 Ga. 217, 219-220 496 SE2d 907 1998 party cannot induce error and then benefit from it.
