O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the “Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.”
History
Code 1981, § 19-11-100, enacted by Ga.
L. 1997, p. 1613, § 33; Ga. L. 2013, p. 705, § 1/SB 193.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Construction of term obligor. - Georgia Court of Appeals holds that the term obligor under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-100 et seq., does not include a corporation. Anderson Anesthesia, Inc. v. Anderson,
333 Ga. App. 437, 776 S.E.2d 647, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 323 (2015). Applicability. - Filing of an Alabama child support order in a Georgia court was not viewed as a traditional action on a foreign judgment, but was more appropri-
ately governed by the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), O.C.G.A. § 19-11-100 et seq.; in a Georgia arrearage proceeding under UIFSA, the statute of limitation under the laws of Georgia or of the issuing state, whichever was longer, and since the Alabama period for dormancy of judgments was longer than that of Georgia, Alabama law applied. Bodenhamer v. Wooten, 265 Ga. App. 733, 595 S.E.2d 592, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 249 (2004), cert. denied, No. S04C1167, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 561 (Ga. June 30, 2004). Procedures set forth in the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq., and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-100 et seq., for registering and enforcing foreign support judgments are in addition to and not exclusive of the procedures in O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130
et seq. to file and domesticate judgments for enforcement; therefore, a trial court had jurisdiction to consider a mother’s petition seeking interest due on child support owing on a Tennessee divorce decree. Dial v. Adkins, 265 Ga. App. 650, 595 S.E.2d 332, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 212 (2004). Corporation lacked standing. - Trial court did not err in dismissing a corporation’s petition seeking income withholding for child support because even when taken as true, the allegations in the petition established that the corporation lacked standing to contest the income withholding order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-100 et seq. Anderson Anesthesia, Inc. v. Anderson, 333 Ga. App. 437, 776 S.E.2d 647, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 323 (2015).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Construction and application of Uni-
form Interstate Family Support Act, 90 A.L.R.5th 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case:
Ross v. Ross, 805 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. 2017).
Ross v. Ross, 805 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 5× “Husband moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the Georgia trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the Connecticut child support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), OCGA § 19-11-100 et seq., in particular because the…”
Dial v. Adkins, 595 S.E.2d 332 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Dial claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Adkins failed to register the Tennessee judgments for enforcement in Georgia pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-160 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) (OCGA § 19-11-100 et seq.”
Kean v. Marshall, 669 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “On April 13, 2006, Marshall filed this action under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), OCGA § 19-11-100 et seq., to record the Alabama order and to modify it by increasing the amount of child support.”
Parker v. Parker, 745 S.E.2d 605 (Ga. 2013).
· cites it 2× “This Court granted the application for discretionary review in this case arising out of an action filed by JoBeth Parker, Appellant, a resident of Georgia, against her then-husband, James Timothy Parker, Appellee, a nonresident, to establish child support pursuant to the Uniform…”
In Re Paul, 513 S.E.2d 219 (Ga. 1999).
“§ 19-11-100 (West Supp. 1998). 21 See Stripling, 261 Ga.”
Owens v. Dep't of Human Resources, 566 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “appeals from the trial court’s order registering and enforcing a Florida child support order under the Uniform *679 Interstate Family Support Act, OCGA § 19-11-100 et seq. (UIFSA), contending that the trial court incorrectly applied Florida law to the issue of dormancy and…”
Anderson Anesthesia, Inc. v. Anderson, 776 S.E.2d 647 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “(“AA”), an Alabama corporation, appeals the trial court’s order dismissing its petition filed pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (the “UIFSA”), OCGA § 19-11-100 et seq., to stay enforcement of an “Income Assignment Order” (the “Income-Withholding Order”)…”
Devlin v. Devlin, 791 S.E.2d 840 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
“1 Former OCGA § 19-11-135 (f) provided: “In a proceeding under [The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, § 19-11-100 et seq.], a tribunal of Georgia may permit a party or witness residing in another state to be deposed or to testify by telephone, audiovisual means, or other…”
Bodenhamer v. Wooten, 595 S.E.2d 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Such an order is therefore more appropriately governed by the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, OCGA § 19-11-100 et seq. (UIFSA). See, e.”
Ross v. Ross (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 4× “Husband moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the Georgia trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the Connecticut child support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), OCGA § 19-11-100 et seq., in particular because the…”
Sussman v. Sussman, 687 S.E.2d 644 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “The trial court entered an order vacating an earlier judgment of that court and dismissing appellant Nathalie Sussman’s petition to register and enforce a foreign support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, OCGA § 19-11-100 et seq. (UIFSA). In vacating the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.