O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-11-110 (2019)

Jurisdiction

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In a proceeding to establish or enforce a support order or to determine parentage of a child, a tribunal of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual or the individual’s guardian or conservator if:

(1) The individual is personally served with process within Georgia;

(2) The individual submits to the jurisdiction of Georgia by consent, by entering a general appearance, or by filing a responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction;

(3) The individual resided with the child in Georgia;

(4) The individual resided in Georgia and provided prenatal expenses or support for the child;

(5) The child resides in Georgia as a result of the acts or directives of the individual;

(6) The individual engaged in sexual intercourse in Georgia and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse;

(7) The individual asserted parentage of a child in the putative father registry maintained in this state by the Department of Human Services; or

(8) There is any other basis consistent with the Constitutions of Georgia and the United States for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.

(b) The bases of personal jurisdiction set forth in subsection (a) of this Code section or in any other law of this state may not be used to acquire personal jurisdiction for a tribunal of this state to modify a child support order of another state unless the requirements of Code Section 19-11-170 are met, or, in the case of a foreign support order, unless the requirements of Code Section 19-11-174 are met.

History

Code 1981, § 19-11-110, enacted by Ga. L. 1997, p. 1613, § 33; Ga. L. 2009, p. 453,

§ 2-2/HB 228; Ga. L. 2013, p. 705, § 1/SB 193.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 27C C.J.S., Divorce, § 1137 et seq. ALR. Requirements and effects of putative father registries, 28 A.L.R.6th 349.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2002–2018 · leading case: Kean v. Marshall, 669 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kean v. Marshall, 669 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The trial court found that although one provision of the UIFSA grants expansive personal jurisdiction over nonresidents in proceedings to modify support orders under OCGA § 19-11-110, other provisions restrict that jurisdiction.”
BAARS v. Freeman, 708 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 19-11-110,19-11-111. In view of OCGA § 19-11-135 (f) and given that the two closely interrelated contempt proceedings were consolidated for hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Freeman to testify by telephone or by not dismissing his…”
In re the Marriage of Scanlon, 110 Wash. App. 682 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “21 RCW; Ga. Code Ann. § 19-11-110 to -118. RCW 26.”
Bodenhamer v. Wooten, 595 S.E.2d 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-11-110 (2). 2. Despite Bodenhamer’s several arguments, and in light of Bodenhamer waiving his jurisdictional argument as explained in Division 1, the only remaining and dispositive issues on appeal are whether the trial court correctly denied Bodenhamer’s motion to…”
Scanlon v. Witrak, 42 P.3d 447 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “21; Ga.Code Ann. § 19-11-110 to 118. [9] RCW 26.”
Liberty New v. Charles Bennett, 249 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). “Ga. Code Ann. § 19-11-110 (a)(2),(8). Here, the Georgia court specifically referenced Bennett filing a pleading in the Georgia proceeding prior to issuance of the Georgia order.”
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.