Schwartz v. Schwartz
Supreme Court of Georgia
1DissentHunstein, Justice
The majority holds that because Stephen was responsible for paying any additional tax liability of the parties, he is automatically entitled to the parties’ joint tax refunds, reading this entitlement into a settlement agreement despite the express admission by the parties that this issue was never contemplated by them. I dissent because there is a complete absence of evidence to support the majority’s holding that under the terms of the agreement Stephen is solely entitled to the joint tax refunds and because the majority imposes upon the agreement an intent and disposition of marital…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Stokes v. StokesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980
- Campbell v. CampbellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1986
- Friedman v. FriedmanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
- Loevy v. Aldrich (In Re Aldrich)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2000
- Monticello Arcade Ltd. Partnership v. Lyall (In Re Lyall)District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1996
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.