Rachid Messaadi Husband instituted a divorce action, and Judy C. Messaadi Wife answered and counterclaimed. After a bench trial, the trial court entered a final divorce decree, awarding custody of the parties’ three minor children to Wife and resolving several other issues, including child support, visitation, and division of property. Husband applied for discretionary appeal, which we granted pursuant to our Pilot Project in divorce cases. 1. Husband contends that, in dividing the property, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to award any portion of the parties’ marital residence to him, and failed to make any ruling regarding the division of either the 1.5 acre tract of unimproved land adjoining the residence or $70,000 cash received by Wife prior to the separation.
As to the unimproved land, Husband asserts that the effect of the trial court’s failure to address that property was to award 100 of it to Wife. Wife responds that no ruling was necessary, as the land was her pre-marital asset, and was part and parcel of the marital residence which was awarded to her. Both parties testified that the land was deeded separately from and subsequent to the conveyance of the residence and that title was placed in both of their names. The undisputed evidence also showed that the address of the marital residence was different from that of the unimproved land. The trial court’s only award of real property reads as follows: “The marital residence located at 368 Chastain Drive, Dallas, Georgia, is hereby awarded to Wife as property division. Husband shall sign a quitclaim deed transferring his interest in said real property immediately.” It has long been the rule that title to property not described in a verdict or judgment is unaffected by the decree and remains titled in the name of the owners as before the decree was entered. Cits. The rule of law . . . is clear that . . . a divorce decree must specifically describe and dispose of property in which both parties have an interest or the decree will not divest either party of their interest in the property. This is true although title to other property . . . is adjudicated, cit., and although one party, like Wife here, claims after the fact that certain real property not specifically described in the decree was meant to be included in the disposition of property. Because the property at issue was not specifically described in . . . the divorce decree, title to the property was unaffected by the decree and remained titled in the names of both parties . . . . Newborn v. Clay , 263 Ga. 622, 623-624 436 SE2d 654 1993. “Accordingly, the omission from the judgment of an explicit award of an interest in the property to Husband is not reversible error. Cit.” Russ v. Russ , 272 Ga. 438, 440 3 530 SE2d 469 2000.
