Arthur v. Arthur
Annotate this Case
Appellant Troy Lee and appellee Vanessa Vickers Arthur were married in April 1995 and are the parents of two minor boys. Husband filed for divorce in October 2010, with Wife filing a counterclaim for divorce shortly thereafter. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered the final judgment and decree on January 31, 2012 that awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, with Wife given primary physical custody and ultimate decision-making authority. The final judgment also made an equitable division of marital property that, among other things, awarded the marital home to Wife after finding that Husband stated he did not want it. Without making a finding regarding the value of the marital estate, the final judgment made the award of the marital home subject to Wife's obligation to assume and hold Husband harmless from the existing indebtedness on the property. It also required Wife to use her best effort to refinance the indebtedness in order to remove Husband from the indebtedness and generate funds to pay Husband for his interest in the home and, if not successful in refinancing the home, to pay Husband with interest from the date of the decree. The final judgment granted Wife an indefinite amount of time to pay Husband should the refinancing be unsuccessful. Husband objected. Husband filed a motion for new trial which was denied. Finding fault with the trial court's equitable division of marital property and with the grant of physical custody of the children to Wife, Husband filed an application for discretionary review of the trial court's final judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial. In granting the application, the Supreme Court expressed concern with: whether the trial court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in response to Husband's request made pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52; and whether the trial court erred in its division of marital property by allowing Wife to delay the ultimate division of the marital home's value for an indefinite period of time. An obligation of a party relating to the equitable division of property may not be extended for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, that
portion of the final judgment that provides an indefinite period of time for the Wife to pay Husband was reversed. Husband's request for a new trial was moot in light of the Court's decision as the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.