Delphine Jackson “Wife” filed for divorce from Ronnie Jackson “Husband” after 23 years of marriage, seeking alimony and child support. A temporary order of support was entered in April 2005; in January 2006 the trial court found Husband in wilful contempt of that order and awarded Wife attorney fees. Two months later, after a bench trial at which only the parties testified, the trial court granted the parties a total divorce and, pertinent to this appeal, declined to award Wife alimony, required Husband to continue payments including temporary alimony, child support and attorney fees due under the earlier contempt ruling, and declined to award Wife additional attorney fees. Pursuant to this Court’s pilot project, we granted Wife’s application for discretionary appeal.1 See Wright v. Wright , 277 Ga. 133 587 SE2d 600 2003. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 1. Wife enumerates several related errors regarding the exclusion of “conduct evidence” as it pertained to her claim for alimony. The evidence in issue involved the alleged harm to Wife’s credit rating caused by the marital residence going into foreclosure and sums that she allegedly expended for the support of the couple’s minor child prior to the filing of the petition. Although Wife contends on appeal that evidence regarding these two items was “conduct evidence” relevant to the trial court’s determination of her claim for alimony, so that exclusion of the evidence violated OCGA § 19-6-1, see Bryan v. Bryan , 242 Ga. 826 1 251 SE2d 566 1979 conduct of spouse should be considered in decision whether to award alimony, the transcript establishes that the evidence was not presented to the trial court for this purpose and no objection was made on that basis to the exclusion of the evidence.2 Contrary to Wife’s claim, the trial court’s refusal to allow in-depth testimony by Wife regarding these items was based on the lack of relevancy, not on any erroneous legal theory. See generally Madaris v. Madaris , 224 Ga. 577 1 163 SE2d 745 1968 trial court does not err by refusing to admit testimony irrelevant and outside the pleadings. See also Bayless v. Bayless , 280 Ga. 153 1 625 SE2d 741 2006 trial court charged with the efficient clearing of cases upon its docket; Atlanta Newspapers v. Grimes , 216 Ga. 74 5 114 SE2d 421 1960 trial court’s wide discretion in controlling conduct of trial upheld unless wrong or oppression results from its abuse. Moreover, Wife acknowledges that the trial court reviewed her list of “monies sought for reimbursement” that included these two items and the transcript reveals that the trial court at the conclusion of the hearing allowed counsel to argue Wife’s entitlement to “everything on that sheet.” Thus, Wife has failed to demonstrate that the trial court did not weigh these items when it considered Wife’s claim for alimony.3
2. Likewise, Wife has failed to demonstrate that the trial court did not weigh these items when it considered her claim for attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-2.4 Accordingly, we find no merit in this enumeration.
