Periodic payments distinguished from lump sum award.

- Unless the decree or alimony trial transcript shows to the contrary: (a) a decree specifying periodic payments for an uncertain time (e.g., until death or remarriage) with no indication of gross amount is alimony and is revisable; (b) a decree specifying periodic payments for a given time with no indication of gross amount other than by multiplying the amount due by the number of payment periods is alimony and is revisable; (c) a decree specifying periodic payments to be made until a given sum (i.e., an amount stated) has been paid is division of property or payment of corpus and is not revisable. Nash v. Nash, 244 Ga. 749, 262 S.E.2d 64 (1979).

In a divorce case when the plain language of the parties' agreement manifests an intent to provide a home for the children, with the custodian making the payments, until such time as both parties agree in writing to sell the home and divide the equity, this is clearly an award of lump sum alimony and is not subject to modification. Lyons v. Lyons, 244 Ga. 619, 261 S.E.2d 395 (1979).

One-time payments not subject to modification.

- One-time payments, whether alimony, payments of corpus or divisions of separate property of parties, are not subject to revision. Nash v. Nash, 244 Ga. 749, 262 S.E.2d 64 (1979).

Exercise of right to petition for modification of child support.

- Right to petition for modification of child support belongs to the child or children involved which may be exercised at the election of the mother or other person having legal custody of the children under the terms of the divorce decree. Crosby v. Crosby, 249 Ga. 569, 292 S.E.2d 814 (1982).

Children possess right to petition for modification of child support.

- Right to petition for modification of child support belongs to the children and cannot be waived by the mother. Crosby v. Crosby, 249 Ga. 569, 292 S.E.2d 814 (1982).

Automatic adjustments based on changes in Consumer Price Index.

- O.C.G.A. § 19-6-19 does not preclude award providing for automatic adjustments based on changes in Consumer Price Index. Hayes v. Hayes, 248 Ga. 526, 283 S.E.2d 875 (1981).

Automatic adjustment provision does not preclude either party from seeking modification. Hayes v. Hayes, 248 Ga. 526, 283 S.E.2d 875 (1981).

Dischargeability in bankruptcy.

- Bankruptcy Court erred in ruling that the jury award of $250,000.00 lump sum alimony was in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support and thus was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523. Ackley v. Ackley, 187 Bankr. 24 (N.D. Ga. 1995).

Fact that a lump sum alimony award to a wife was non-modifiable did not negate the possibility that the award was for the wife's maintenance and support; even though a lump sum alimony award was in the "nature" of a property settlement since the evidence showed that the lump sum award was for the wife's maintenance and support, the finding that it was for that purpose, rather than a division of property which was dischargeable in bankruptcy, was affirmed. Daniel v. Daniel, 277 Ga. 871, 596 S.E.2d 608 (2004).

No modification of lump sum award.

- Trial court did not err in dismissing a former spouse's motion for modification of alimony because the award was a lump sum settlement of property rights not subject to modification under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-19(a) or lump sum alimony not subject to modification under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-21. Rivera v. Rivera, 283 Ga. 547, 661 S.E.2d 541 (2008).

Cited in Oliver v. Oliver, 244 Ga. 20, 257 S.E.2d 527 (1979); Kaufmann v. Kaufmann, 245 Ga. 721, 267 S.E.2d 16 (1980); Nix v. Nix, 185 Bankr. 929 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994).