Denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss former husband’s petition for modification and temporary reduction of alimony to $3K per month, REVERSED; couple divorced in Cobb county in December of 2008, and settlement agreement required former husband to pay defendant monthly $4.2K alimony sum for 12 years, defendant moved to Cherokee county and filed contempt motion in Cobb county, which was heard in February 2009 and, thereafter, former husband filed instant petition for modification of alimony; trial court erred in failing to dismiss former husband’s action for improper venue, because proper venue in alimony-modifiaciton action is defendants county of residence.

Parris v. Douthit, S10A0165 (04/19/2010), 10 FCDR 1425

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (04/30/2010)

Dismissal of mother’s petition for change of custody, which included request for child support, REVERSED; trial court erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over matter, on basis that child was 18 years old when it held hearing, since mother filed petition when child was still minor and child’s change of legal custody, even for brief period of time prior to his majority, was relevant to question of child support for that period of time; ruling on child support petition after child reached majority did not divest mother of her right to seek award of child support from time peition was filed through remaining period of child’s majoirty;  O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15(e) provides that custodial parent may seek to extend child support payments for child who has reach age of majority, but has not completed his or her secondary education, as alleged herein; trial court erred in failing to consider mother’s petition for change of custody as petition for child support, since petition included request ofr child support and child support claim was inextricably tried to mother’s peition to gain legal custody as O.C.G.A. § 19-6-19 requires.

Wade f/k/a Corinthian v. Corinthian, S08A0363; S08A0363 (05/19/08), 08 FCDR 1694.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (05/30/08)

Judgment for mother AFFIRMED 4-3;  Weaver v. Jones, 260 Ga. 493 (1990) decided question of whether father’s petition seeking declaratory judgment as to his obligation for past child support stated claim for relief; father needed direction from judicial tribunal to remove uncertainty regarding consequences of his planned future actions in continuing to deny mother’s claim of back-due child support based on his understanding of formula set forth in parties divorce decree.

Acevedo v. Kim F/K/A Acevedo, S08A0798 (11/03/08)

From the Fulton County Daily Report (11/14/2008).

Judgment on parties’ divorce case, REVERSED, as trial court erred in finding that 10-yer requirement set forth in Uniformed Services Former Souses’ Protection Act, 10 USC § 1408 (d) (2), prevented it from making equitable division of husband’s military retirement benefits; 10-year requirement is simply limitation on direct payment mechanism of that Act and has no bearing on state court’s authority to treat military retirement benefits as divisible marital property; trial court DID NOT manifestly abuse its discretion in denying wife’s motion to supplement appellate record.

Michel v. Michel, S10F0372 (03/29/10), 10 FCDR 1012

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (04/09/2010)

Dismissal of father’s new/amended contempt application concerning mother’s alleged violation of his visitation rights, REVERSED; father had right under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34 as amended to directly appeal dismissal of his contempt motion, father’s new contempt motion gave mother adequate notice of nature of his claim and trial court’s sua sponte dismissal without hearing did not afford father due process; mother’s contention that trial court lacked personal jurisdiction was meritless, even though mother had moved out of state, since father’s properly served prior contempt motion was still pending when he served mother with new/amended motion and father’s service of new/amended motion on mother’s attorney of record in prior pending action was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

Dennis v. Dennis, A10A0500 (03/10/10), 10 FCDR

From the Fulton County Daily Report, 3/26/2010.

Order denying father’s petition to legitimate minor and terminating father’s parental rights AFFIRMED, as trial court did not err in denying father’s legitimation petition; father abandoned his opportunity interest to develop relationship with minor, since father did not spend any significant time with minor, after living with minor for one year, and did not pay child support or send cards or letters to minor; father’s argument that trial court wrongfully denied right to counsel during termination of parental rights hearing, REJECTED, because he lacked standing to challenge termination of his rights; father’s contention that juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, REJECTED, because juvenile court has original jurisdiction unless termination petition is filed in connection with formal adoption proceedings.

In the Interest of J.S., A10A0186 (02/12/2010), 10 FCDR 413.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 2/26/2010.

Judgment of trial court REVERSED in father’s action under OCGA § 19-11-12 for modification of his monthly child support obligation as trial court applied high income deviation from presumptive child support award without making all required findings under OCGA § 19-6-15 (c)(2) – trial court’s order failed to state how application of presumptive amount of child support would be unjust or inappropriate and how upward deviation would serve best interest of children; Court has jurisdiction over appeals from orders in child support modification proceedings, which arise from prior divorce or alimony action, regardless of code section under which parties pursued modification, i.e. OCGA § 19-11-12 or 19-6-19, and Court had jurisdiction in this case, because case involved alimony for support of children; striking and redocketing appeal was not necessary to preserve Court’s ultimate jurisdiction in this case.

Spurlock v. Department of Human Resources, S09A1475 (2/15/2010), 10 FCDR 399.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 2/26/2010.

Judgment granting father’s motion to enforce settlement agreement pertaining to child custody and visitation and awarding him primary physical custody of his two children, AFFIRMED; absent transcript, trial court presumably did not err in rejecting mother’s claims that she did not assent to settlement’s terms and lacked capacity to contract at time in question due to medical condition;  Court had jurisdiction over direct appeal of matter, since relevant legal action for jurisdictional purposes was father’s motion to enforce settlement agreement, which he filed after 2007 amendment to OCGA § 5-6-34 providing that all judgments or orders in child custody cases are directly appealable – and not divorce complaint, which was filed prior to amendment.

Martinez v. Martinez, A10A0248 (11/24/09), 09 FCDR 3955

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 12/18/2009.

Dismissal of appellant’s petition to register and enforce 1995 Massachusetts support order against her ex-husband in principal amount of $421,465.84, REVERSED; trial court erred in ruling that order could not be enforced because it was dormant under Georgia law;  appellee’s contention that Massachusetts judgment did not constitute support order under Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”) on basis that it was contempt order, AFFIRMED, since order included finding that appellee was in contempt of original judgment of divorce, but also established appellee’s arrearages for alimony and statutory interest; Massachusetts judgment was order and judgment for benefit of former spouse providing for arrearages and interest within definition of support order under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-101 (21); Massachusetts 20-year statute of limitation controlled over Georgia’s 7-year dormancy law, since choice of law provisions of UIFSA provide that law of jurisdiction, which issued support order, “governs the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments and other obligations of support and the payment of arrearages under the order;” ‘O.C.G.A. § 19-11-163 (b) provides that, ‘ “[i]n a proceeding for arrearages, the statute of limitation under the laws of Georgia or of the issuing state, whichever is longer, applies,” ‘ in any event.

Sussman v. Sussman, A09A2289 (12/02/09), 09 FCDR 3930

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 12/18/2009.

Grant of ex-wife’s petition to modify parties’ divorce decree, AFFIRMED, as ex-husband waived any objection to insufficient service of process by personally appearing at hearing on modification petition.

Hudson v. Easterling, A09A2396 (11/19/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (12/11/2009)