five-day requirement in Georgia

2023The Appellees later amended the modification petition, requesting that the Mother be required to transport the children to and from visitation and that all paternal family members be allowed to participate in visitation and Skype calls with the children. 4 See Sheppard v. McCraney, 317 Ga. App. 91, 92 ( 730 SE2d 721 ) (2012). 3 efforts.5 The Mother appeals from the order denying the motion to dismiss the modification petition and the portion of the Final Order expanding the visitation with the Grandson.

2023The Appellees later amended the modification petition, requesting that the Mother be required to transport the children to and from visitation and that all paternal family members be allowed to participate in visitation and Skype calls with the children. 4 See Sheppard v. McCraney, 317 Ga. App. 91, 92 ( 730 SE2d 721 ) (2012). 3 efforts.5 The Mother appeals from the order denying the motion to dismiss the modification petition and the portion of the Final Order expanding the visitation with the Grandson.

2021While it is dubious that neither Christopher or his former counsel were aware of Fortier’s status prior to the filing of this motion for contempt, because the trial court determined that the motion was timely, we shall review it as such. 5 (Punctuation and citations omitted.) Mondy v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc., 303 Ga. 764, 766 (2) ( 815 SE2d 70 ) (2018).

2021A copy of the petition and writ shall also be served on the opposite party or his counsel or other legal representative, in person or by mail, and service shown by acknowledgment, or by certificate of the counsel or person perfecting such service.” Ga. Code Ann. § 19-210 . 5 Fisher v. City of Atlanta, 212 Ga. App. 635 ( 442 SE2d 762 ) (1994). 6 City of Atlanta v. Saunders, 159 Ga. App. 566, 568 ( 284 SE2d 77 ) (1981) (citing Hipp v. City of East Point, 105 Ga. App. 775 ( 125 SE2d 672 ) (1962), which applies former Ga. Code Ann. § 19-210 ). 5 leaves the local government for the superior court.”

2021A copy of the petition and writ shall also be served on the opposite party or his counsel or other legal representative, in person or by mail, and service shown by acknowledgment, or by certificate of the counsel or person perfecting such service.” Ga. Code Ann. § 19-210 . 5 Fisher v. City of Atlanta, 212 Ga. App. 635 ( 442 SE2d 762 ) (1994). 6 City of Atlanta v. Saunders, 159 Ga. App. 566, 568 ( 284 SE2d 77 ) (1981) (citing Hipp v. City of East Point, 105 Ga. App. 775 ( 125 SE2d 672 ) (1962), which applies former Ga. Code Ann. § 19-210 ). 5 leaves the local government for the superior court.”

2021Despite Christopher’s insistence otherwise, as the Georgia Supreme Court explained in GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. James, 298 Ga. 420, 422-423 (1) ( 782 SE2d 284 ) (2016), the five-day rule for filing a motion to recuse applies to all recusal cases, even those involving a judge appearing as a party in a case in the same circuit, which is the situation alleged by Christopher herein.

2021Despite Christopher’s insistence otherwise, as the Georgia Supreme Court explained in GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. James, 298 Ga. 420, 422-423 (1) ( 782 SE2d 284 ) (2016), the five-day rule for filing a motion to recuse applies to all recusal cases, even those involving a judge appearing as a party in a case in the same circuit, which is the situation alleged by Christopher herein.

2011And although service on Strickland should have been effected within five days of filing the original complaint under OCGA § 9-11-4 (c), the statute explicitly states that “failure to make service within the five-day period will not invalidate a later service.” Indeed, this five-day requirement generally only becomes relevant “in cases where service is completed outside the applicable statute of limitation.” (Citation omitted.) Dyer v. Paffenroth, 197 Ga. App. 888, 890 (1) ( 399 SE2d 710 ) (1990).

2011And although service on Strickland should have been effected within five days of filing the original complaint under OCGA § 9-11-4 (c), the statute explicitly states that “failure to make service within the five-day period will not invalidate a later service.” Indeed, this five-day requirement generally only becomes relevant “in cases where service is completed outside the applicable statute of limitation.” (Citation omitted.) Dyer v. Paffenroth, 197 Ga. App. 888, 890 (1) ( 399 SE2d 710 ) (1990).

1979See Knowles v. Knowles, 125 Ga. App. 642 ( 188 SE2d 800 ) (1972).

1979See Knowles v. Knowles, 125 Ga. App. 642 ( 188 SE2d 800 ) (1972).