Gonzalez v. Crocket, S10A0452
*All courts mentioned are at the state level.
- Trial court did not err in clarifying that the “marital residence” described in the parties’ decree only described the marital home and the 5 acre tract it sat on, and not the surrounding 21.9 acre tract.
- Husband misplaced reliance on Court’s holding in Messaadi v. Messaadi, 282 Ga. 126, 646 S.E.2d 230 (2007).
- Court explains that the fact that adjacent lot in Messaadi has a separate address, and was not embraced by an award of the “marital residence located at“ a stated address, does not mean that use of the term “marital residence” in concert with a specific address will necessarily embrace a separate lot when there is not a separate address.
- Court stated that Husband’s own acts show he considered marital residence to encompass only the 5 acre property.
- Court considered that the parties paid separate taxes on the 5 acre parcel and 21.9 acre parcel, that the parties made payment to relieve debt on the 5 acre parcel only, and that pursuant to the settlement agreement which required Husband to refinance the marital residence in Husband’s name only, Husband refinanced only the 5 acre tract.