1  The divorce decree provided that the appellant would get the house; the appellee would pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, repairs, and utilities; the appellant would receive the 1985 Laser automobile; the appellee would pay all taxes, insurance, and repairs on the vehicle, and would provide and maintain for the appellant an equivalent vehicle until such time as she remarries or dies; the appellee would make the appellant the beneficiary of his retirement income policy and would pay all medical, hospital, and dental bills; and the appellee would further provide $140 per week in alimony until the appellant remarries or dies.The alimony was modified as follows: the $140 per week would cease after 13 weeks; the appellee did not have to provide the appellant a new vehicle or maintain the appellant's present vehicle; all medical payments should cease immediately, but the appellee must continue to carry the appellant's insurance for 6 months; and the appellee no longer had to pay the appellant's utility bills.

2  To the contrary, we have affirmed the termination of alimony obligations in modification actions based upon the cohabitation by the spouse receiving support with a third party in a meretricious relationship, OCGA 19-6-19 (b), because cohabitation in a meretricious relationship is "similar in nature to marriage," and remarriage would terminate the alimony by law. Sims v. Sims, 245 Ga. 680 (266 SE2d 493) (1980); Berman v. Berman, 253 Ga. 298 (319 SE2d 846) (1984). That rationale does not apply in a modification action based upon a change in the need or financial circumstances of a party under OCGA 19-6-19 (a).

3  We recognize that when there is no alimony awarded in the original divorce decree, a modification action is not authorized, there being no award to modify. See OCGA 19-6-21; see also Bickford v. Bickford, 229 Ga. 229, 230 (190 SE2d 70) (1972). However, modification of an existing award to $0.00 under 19-6-19 (a) does not erase the original award, which remains susceptible to future modification, if otherwise possible.

4  The dissent states that the language in the judgment purporting to render the modification permanent indicates that the jury considered the appellant's entitlement to alimony, in violation of OCGA 9-6-20. This issue was neither raised nor addressed by the parties. Even had it been, the jury was properly charged, and any conclusion about its reasoning is sheer speculation. Moreover, any language in the verdict or judgment regarding permanence of the modification is useless surplusage, see Southern R. Co. v. Oliver &c., 1 Ga. App. 734, 738 (58 SE 244) (1907), as the law clearly allows modification of alimony at least every two years, if the circumstances of the parties so warrant, OCGA 19-6-19 (a).

5  A review of the verdict and the judgment reveals language expressly terminating appellee's obligations under the settlement agreement. E.g., the verdict makes provisions to "discontinue" some payments and to "delete" sentences in the settlement agreement addressing other obligations. The judgment, which conformed to the jury's award, provides that appellee's obligations for weekly payments of alimony are "discontinued, stricken and canceled"; that appellee is "relieved of all future obligations in regard to the purchase and maintenance" of appellant's automobile; that obligations regarding payment of future dental and medical expenses are "deleted and terminated immediately and [appellee] has no future obligation to pay for same in the future"; and that the provision obligating appellee to pay appellant's utility expenses is "hereby stricken in its entirety [and appellee] has no obligation to pay for said expenses after August 28, 1991." The only term still in effect from the settlement agreement is appellee's obligation to maintain appellant's 1985 automobile.