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.

Judgment partially reversed in parties’ divorce case;  trial court erred in concluding severability clause in divorce decree and is ordered to strike that language from judgment on remand;  remaining portions of trial court’s judgment, affirmed; trial court had authority to strike husband’s jury trial demand as proper sanctions for his willful refusal to participate in specially set trial; language in divorce decree regarding treatment of $200K lump sum property division as alimony in event husband files bankruptcy prior to paying amount in full did not change name of award;  trial court did not err under 19-6-2 in including wife’s attorneys’ fees for appellate proceedings during pendency of litigation in its fee award.

Kautter v. Kautter, S09F0958 (10/19/09).

Judgment in parties’ divorce case partially reversed; trial court erred in awarding wife $36.5K in lump sum alimony, payable over 3.5 months, given total lack of evidence showing that husband had financial resources to pay that amount.

Coker v. Coker, S09F1159 (10/19/09)

Fulton County Daily Report – 10/30/2009.