This Court granted ex-wife Mary Smith “Wife” discretionary review of a superior court ruling on her application for contempt against her ex-husband Michael Smith “Husband” in order to consider whether the superior court improperly modified the parties’ final judgment and decree of divorce within the contempt proceeding. Finding that it did, we reverse. A chronology of the divorce litigation is necessary. The Smiths’ divorce action was tried before a jury, and a final judgment and decree on the jury’s verdict was entered on June 9, 2003.1 The final judgment and decree “decree” provided, inter alia, that the Wife would receive 50 of the Husband’s IRA valued as of the date of the verdict, with payment to be accomplished by a “trustee-to-trustee” transfer to the Wife’s IRA; the marital residence; one-half of the cash value of a life insurance policy; one-half of the balance owed on a note and one-half of the security for the note; 10 of the Husband’s shares of common stock in Biomedical Disposal, Inc., a company for which the Husband was chief executive officer; 50 of the VHX stock owned by the Husband; 50 of the PSSI stock which the Husband admittedly owned; $5,000 per month in alimony for 48 months and thereafter $4,000 per month for the “next immediate 24 months”; and a division of the remaining marital property in the lump sum amount of $291,000 to be paid within 60 days of May 2, 2003. The decree further awarded the Wife $2,000 per month in “supplemental alimony” to assist in her support of the parties’ disabled adult daughter, to be paid during the life of the daughter,2 and 32 1/2 of the Husband’s Biomedical Disposal, Inc. stock to help reimburse the Wife for support of the daughter. Also, based upon the agreement of the Husband, 32 1/2 of the Husband’s Biomedical Disposal, Inc. stock was awarded to the parties’ minor son, to be held in trust and controlled by the Husband.3
The Husband filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied on September 25, 2003. In denying a new trial, the superior court found all of the alleged grounds for a new trial to be meritless, and that the Husband’s acceptance of benefits under the decree was inconsistent with asking for a new trial.4 The Husband then filed an application for discretionary appeal in this Court, which was granted automatically under this Court’s pilot project. See Wright v. Wright , 277 Ga. 133 587 SE2d 600 2003. However, on June 16, 2004,5 the superior court dismissed the Husband’s appeal for his failure to pay costs. This Court denied the Husband’s application for discretionary appeal from the dismissal.
