her benefit for 12 years was a form of either property division or lump sum alimony and therefore is not subject to modification. The life insurance award was not property division, however, because its amount and duration were (and are) indefinite; it might require Husband to pay premiums for 12 years, or it may be worth $ 100,000 plus one to 12 premiums, with the obligation satisfied at that point, depending on the unknowable fact of how long Husband lives. Likewise, the life insurance obligation is not lump sum alimony; again because Husband’s lifespan is indeterminable, the divorce decree does not impose an “exact number and amount of payments ‘without other limitations, conditions or statements of intent.’ ” Rivera, 283 Ga. at 548 (citation omitted). Compare Moore, 286 Ga. at 506 (<HOLDING>). Thus, this Court has previously concluded
holding that district court could not delegate to probation the obligation of scheduling defendants installment payments holding that an obligation is in the nature of alimony when it is intended to provide support for the spouse rather than an equalization of property rights holding that the domesticrelations exception prevented the plaintiff from challenging in federal court the constitutionality of the statecourt judges decision to consider certain assets and property when calculating the plaintiffs husbands income for the purposes of determining alimony payments because the plaintiff ultimately wanted this court to enjoin the state court from using property  to determine the amount of alimony owed holding that installment payments of a fixed amount for a fixed time period not terminating upon the payee spouses death are property division rather than alimony holding that reconsideration of the correctness of property division was barred on appeal from the judgment enforcing that division