O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-11-41 (2019)

Purposes of article

✓ 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

The purposes of this article are to improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support and to make uniform the law with respect thereto.

History

Ga. L. 1958, p. 34, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Purpose of O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq. - Purpose of O.C.G.A. Art. 2, Ch. 11, T. 19 is to improve enforcement of duty of support, not to impair that duty. Ray v. Ray, 247 Ga. 467, 277 S.E.2d 495, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 754 (1981); Bisno v. Biloon, 161 Ga. App. 351, 291 S.E.2d 66, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1875 (1982). Intent of the General Assembly in en-

acting the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq., was not that resident obligors on prior judicial awards of child support be denied the right to a jury trial on the issue of change of condition by being “prosecuted” in a quasi-criminal hearing at which a law enforcement official of this state represents the obligee. Bisno v.

Biloon, 161 Ga. App. 351, 291 S.E.2d 66, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1875 (1982). Article has intrastate as well as interstate use. - While O.C.G.A. § 1911-40 et seq. has been thought of as being primarily for use interstate, it has intrastate application as well. Ray v. Ray, 247 Ga. 467, 277 S.E.2d 495, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 754 (1981). Intrastate support obligor cannot obtain modification by action. - If an

intrastate support obligor wants modification of child support provisions of divorce and alimony decree, the obligor can bring a suit for modification, but the obligor is not entitled to precipitate an action under O.C.G.A. § 19-11-40 et seq. in order to obtain modification. Ray v. Ray, 247 Ga. 467, 277 S.E.2d 495, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 754 (1981); Bisno v. Biloon, 161 Ga. App. 351, 291 S.E.2d 66, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1875 (1982).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Reciprocal features of Act not extended to foreign countries. - Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act is effective between Georgia and all other states and territories of the United

States where a similar act has been enacted but reciprocal features are not extended to foreign countries. 1962 Ga. Op. Att’y Gen. 348.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Desertion and Nonsupport, § 72 et seq. C.J.S. 41 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, §§ 16, 66

et seq., 214, 215, 219, 220. 67A C.J.S., Parent and Child, §§ 175, 203. U.L.A. Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1958 Act) (U.L.A.) § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1984–1999 · leading case: Brookins v. Brookins, 357 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brookins v. Brookins, 357 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 19-11-41. URESA was designed to facilitate collection of support from absent parents in distant states (and counties, Ray v.”

Evans v. State, 341 S.E.2d 865 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “" OCGA § 19-11-41. As noted above, "`[d]uty of support' includes any duty of support imposed or *3 imposable by law.”

Dep't of Human Resources v. Deason, 520 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 19-11-41. Accordingly, a[n] URESA action for child support arrearages cannot be viewed as a traditional “action on a foreign judgment.”

State of Ga. v. McKenna, 315 S.E.2d 885 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 19-11-41. We hold that the trial court was correct in denying Mr.”

Brookins v. Brookins, 380 S.E.2d 494 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “) OCGA § 19-11-41. Accordingly, a URESA action for child support arrearages cannot be viewed as a traditional “action on a foreign judgment.”

State v. Overstreet, 318 S.E.2d 65 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-11-41; Bisno v. Biloon, 161 Ga.”

Dep't of Human Resources v. Westmoreland, 436 S.E.2d 706 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “The trial court in essence concluded that the second URESA petition was in effect an attempt to modify the previous URESA action and thus was invalid. This is a case of first impression for this court.”

Dep't of Human Resources v. Pruitt, 476 S.E.2d 764 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-11-41. Clearly, one purpose in creating such a scheme was to eliminate some of the jurisdictional battles often attendant to interstate support actions.”

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.