Van Dyck v. Van Dyck
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Sears-Collins, Justice.
We granted the application for discretionary appeal filed by the appellant, Ginger Van Dyck, to consider whether Item 3 (b) of the parties’ separation agreement is so ambiguous as to permit the introduction of parol evidence regarding whether the payments that the appellee, Philip Van Dyck, was required to make thereunder were alimony or child support. The trial court ruled that the provision is ambiguous and that parol evidence was thus admissible to determine whether the payments were alimony or child support. We disagree.
Item 3 (b) provides that the appellee shall…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Commissioner v. LesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- American Cyanamid Co. v. RingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1982
- McKie v. McKieSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
- Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
- Nash v. NashSupreme Court of Georgia · 1979
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Crow v. CookCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1994
- Odom v. OdomSupreme Court of Georgia · 2012
- Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. City of College ParkCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2020