- 7 -
As indicated previously, the parties here disagree over
whether petitioner’s obligation to pay the $55,000 to his former
wife would have survived the former wife’s death prior to
petitioner’s effectuating payment of the $55,000 to her on August
1, 2000. Petitioner concedes that the jury’s verdict does not
specifically state whether or not his payment obligation to his
former wife would terminate with her death. Nonetheless,
petitioner contends that, under Georgia law, his obligation to
pay the $55,000 to petitioner’s former wife would have terminated
upon his former wife’s death, because the $55,000 award is
periodic alimony. He argues that if the jury intended the
payment obligation to be nonterminable, the jury’s verdict should
have instead specifically referred to the $55,000 award as a
property settlement. Petitioner also maintains that construing
the $55,000 to be “lump sum alimony”, under Georgia law,
conflicts with the jury’s other finding awarding to his former
wife nothing from him as an equitable property distribution.
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the $55,000 is
“lump sum alimony” under Georgia law, and that petitioner’s
obligation to pay her the $55,000 would not have terminated with
his former wife’s death. We agree with respondent.
Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the jury’s verdict
specifically referred to and described the $55,000 award to be
paid petitioner’s former wife as “lump sum alimony”. In
accordance with the verdict, in its July 17, 2000, Final
Judgment, the Georgia Superior Court required petitioner pay her
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011