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 may be cited as the “Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.”
History
Ga. L. 1958, p. 34, § 34.
Annotations
Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 1958, p. 34, §§ 29 and 30, not codified by the General Assembly, provide
that judgments, decrees, or orders issued under the authority of laws utilized prior to initial passage in 1958 of this article shall continue in validity.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Ga. L. 1958, p. 34 (see now O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq.) does not apply merely in cases of actual nonsupport. Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 131 Ga. App. 567, 206 S.E.2d 583, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1472 (1974). Counterclaim for modification not permitted in contempt proceeding. - Counterclaim for modification of a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq., support order may not be asserted by the defendant in a URESA contempt proceeding. The only issue for determination in a URESA contempt proceeding is the enforcement of the support obligation previously established by the URESA order. State v. Garrish, 197 Ga. App. 816, 399 S.E.2d 572, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 1479 (1990). Spousal consent precluded arrears recovery. - When wife consented to al-
lowing the minor child of the parties to live with the husband in Germany for a three-year period and did not provide any support for the child during that three year period; the husband provided all of the support for the child during that period and not until three years after the child had returned from Germany did the wife seek to recover any child support for the time the child spent in Germany, the wife could be said to have consented to the husband’s voluntary expenditures as an alternative to his child support obligation and, as a result, the trial court erred in concluding that the husband was in arrears in the payment of child support for the three-year period at issue. Brown v. Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources ex rel. Brown, 263 Ga. 53, 428 S.E.2d 81, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 355 (1993).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Desertion and Nonsupport, § 72. C.J.S. 41 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, § 214 et
seq. 67A C.J.S, Parent and Child, § 73. 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 486 et seq. U.L.A. Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1958 Act) (U.L.A.) § 42.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases, 1983–2008 · leading case:
Dial v. Adkins, 595 S.E.2d 332 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
Kean v. Marshall, 669 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “The UIFSA was enacted to replace the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) (OCGA § 19-11-40 et seq.) for enforcement proceedings filed on or after January 1, 1998.”
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.”
Owens v. Dep't of Human Resources, 566 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In 1975, a petition was filed in Georgia under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, OCGA § 19-11-40 et seq. (applicable to actions initiated prior to January 1, 1998), and an order was entered directing him to pay support of $30 per week.”
Peddar v. Peddar, 683 N.E.2d 1045 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997).
“See Ga. Code Ann. §§ 19-11-40 et seq. (1991).”
Riersgard v. Morton, 479 S.E.2d 748 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Relying on the fact that Riersgard had filed a complaint pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), OCGA § 19-11-40 et seq., in Nevada, which was later transferred to Georgia, the court denied the motion and refused to set aside the judgment.”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Pruitt, 476 S.E.2d 764 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-11-40 et seq. The DHR, acting on behalf of Ohio resident Donald Gordon, was seeking to collect child support and arrearages from Georgia resident Barbara Pruitt based on a child support order that Gordon obtained in an Ohio court.”
Brown v. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources, 428 S.E.2d 81 (Ga. 1993).
· cites it 2× “In July of 1991, the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), OCGA § 19-11-40 et seq., filed a petition for support on behalf of appellee seeking a modification of child support and payment of various…”
Perry v. Comm'r, 92 T.C. 470 (Tax Ct. 1989).
“The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act provides a procedure through which the custodial parent can gain interstate enforcement of child support.”
Brookins v. Brookins, 380 S.E.2d 494 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “” The issue presented for resolution in this discretionary appeal is the applicability of OCGA § 9-3-20 in an action for child support arrearages instituted pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), OCGA § 19-11-40 et seq. This issue arises from the…”
In Re Pollock, 90 B.R. 747 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1988).
· cites it 2× “142, § 2 effective June 27, 1978) and O.C.G.A. §§ 19-11-40—19-11-81 (1982) (1958 Ga.”
Brookins v. Brookins, 357 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. 1987).
· cites it 2× “In the appellant-mother’s present action against the appellee-father under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), OCGA § 19-11-40 et seq., she alleged that the defendant was under a duty to support the parties’ minor children under the parties’ 1974 Ohio…”
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.