Summary
The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed contempt judgments arising from an alimony decree and held that the decree was sufficiently definite to support contempt enforcement. The court declined to decide whether a supersedeas bond was improperly required because the record did not show that the bond had been filed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the provisions of the alimony decree were sufficiently definite to support a contempt judgment.
- Whether the trial court erred in requiring a $4,000 supersedeas bond pending appeal from the contempt judgment.
Holdings
- The alimony decree was not vague or indefinite and was subject to enforcement through contempt proceedings.
- The court did not decide whether requiring a supersedeas bond was erroneous because the record did not affirmatively show that the bond had been filed, and the appellee represented that no bond could be located.
Key quotations
“Having reviewed this decree, we find that it is not vague and indefinite, and it is subject to enforcement by the court.” (232 Ga. at 81)
“Assuming, but not deciding, that it was erroneous to require the posting of a supersedeas bond in this contempt case, since the record does not affirmatively show that such a bond was filed, and since the appellee asserts in her brief that no such bond can be located in the clerk’s office, this is not an issue for decision in this case.” (232 Ga. at 81)
Factual background
The appellant was subject to an alimony decree entered on May 9, 1973. After finding that he had failed to comply, the trial court entered contempt orders requiring compliance and providing for incarceration until the contempt was purged. The trial court later ordered his release upon posting a $4,000 supersedeas bond, and the appellant appealed.
Procedural history
The trial court entered an alimony decree on May 9, 1973. After successive contempt judgments, including an October 29, 1973 order committing the appellant until he purged the contempt, the court entered a November 16, 1973 judgment ordering his release upon posting a $4,000 supersedeas bond. The appellant appealed, challenging both the enforceability of the alimony decree and the bond requirement.