Supreme Court of Georgia
Candler v. Wilkerson
223 Ga. 520 · 156 S.E.2d 358
Decided July 14, 1967
No negative treatmentNo negative treatment found: no reversal on appeal and no treated citing cases.
Summary
The court held that a statutory amendment providing for termination of permanent alimony upon the wife's remarriage could not retroactively terminate payments established by a preexisting settlement agreement and incorporated into a final decree. Applying the constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws and impairment of contracts, the court affirmed dismissal of the action seeking to end the payments.
Holdings
- Retroactive application of the alimony-termination amendment. The 1966 amendment to Code § 30-209 could not be applied to terminate payments established by the parties' preexisting alimony settlement and incorporated into a final decree because doing so would impair vested rights and contractual obligations and violate constitutional prohibitions against retroactive laws and impairment of contracts. *522
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
3 opinions cite this case
Treatment rows appear when later opinions record how they used this case.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
Before the approval of the amendment to Code § 30-209 (Ga. L. 1966, p. 160) whereby all obligations for permanent alimony for the wife would cease upon her remarriage whether created by contract or otherwise unless otherwise provided in the decree, the alimony awarded in this case would not terminate upon the death or remarriage of either party since it is for an amount certain to be paid over a period of time. The award of alimony was the result of a contract by and between the parties and attached to and made a part of the final decree which was a trust indenture whereby permanent alimony would be paid over a period of time in varied amounts until August 1, 1972, at which time the trust would terminate. To the extent that the provisions of the above law might provide for termination of alimony payments made as provided in the trust agreement it can not be applied to vested rights fixed by judgments such as this one which was rendered before the Act was passed. To do so would cause the Act to offend the constitutional inhibition against retroactive laws. In addition it would destroy the wife’s interest in the trust and nullify the contract entered into by the parties in settlement of alimony. The lower court held that the agreement constituted an equitable assignment and vested in *522 the wife an equitable interest in the trust, hence the Act (Ga. L. 1966, p. 160) amending Code § 30-209 so as to provide for the duration of alimony is, insofar as it undertook to affect the obligations of a valid contract in existence at the time of its passage, and particularly to this trust agreement, null and void as violative of the State Constitution (Art. I, Sec. Ill, Par. II; Code Ann. § 2-302) and the Federal Constitution (Art. I, Sec. X, Par. I; 'Code § 1-134). With this we agree. It follows that the court did not err in dismissing the suit seeking to terminate the payments because of the remarriage of the wife.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- Chester Chin vs. Edith E. Merriot470 Mass. 527 (2015)
- Rebecca J. Weir, Plaintiff and Appellee v. H. Patrick Weir, Defendant and Appellant1985 N.D. LEXIS 385 (1985)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore5 Ohio St. 3d 217 (1983)
- Grothen v. Grothen952 N.W.2d 650 (2020)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris382 So. 2d 1197 (1980)