Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §19-11-163, enacted by Ga. L. 1997, p. 1613, § 33; Ga. L. 2013, p. 705, § 1/SB 193.)
- Trial court properly applied Florida law in addressing respondent father's defense of dormancy in an action by petitioner human resources department to collect arrearages under a Florida child support order when Florida was the issuing state within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 19-11-163(a) and had a shorter statute of limitation than Georgia for purposes of § 19-11-163(b). Owens v. Dep't of Human Res., 255 Ga. App. 678, 566 S.E.2d 403 (2002).
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 appropriately 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).
- Trial court erred in vacating the court's prior order confirming a Massachusetts judgment that required a former husband to pay arrearages and in dismissing a former wife's petition to register and enforce the judgment as a support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), O.C.G.A. § 19-11-100 et seq., on the ground that the Massachusetts judgment was dormant under Georgia law; under the choice of law provisions of UIFSA, Massachusetts law controlled, and the Massachusetts judgment remained enforceable under that state's statute of limitation because the Massachusetts statute of limitation for the enforcement of judgments was 20 years, and less than 20 years had elapsed since the issuance of the Massachusetts judgment. The limitation period for the enforcement of judgments was longer in Massachusetts than in Georgia, and the trial court should have applied Massachusetts law to the dormancy issue in the case. Sussman v. Sussman, 301 Ga. App. 397, 687 S.E.2d 644 (2009).
No results found for Georgia Code 19-11-163.