O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-6-22 (2019)

Revision of judgment for permanent alimony - Expenses of litigation

✓ 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

Where a petition authorized by subsection (a) of Code Section 19-6-19 is filed by a party obligated to pay alimony, the court may require the party to pay the reasonable expenses of litigation as may be incurred by the party’s former spouse on behalf of the former spouse in defense thereof.

History

Ga. L. 1955, p. 630, § 4; Ga. L. 1979, p. 466, § 26; Ga. L. 2005, p. 224, § 9/HB 221; Ga. L. 2006, p. 583, § 8/SB 382.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2005, p. 224, § 1/HB 221, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “The General Assembly finds and declares that it is important to assess periodically child support guidelines and determine whether existing guidelines continue to be viable and effective or whether they have failed or ceased to accomplish their original policy objectives. The General Assembly further finds that supporting Georgia’s children is vitally important to the citizens of Georgia. Therefore, the General Assembly has determined that it is in the best interests of the state and its citizenry to undertake an evaluation of the child support guidelines on a continuing basis. The General Assembly declares that it is important that all of Georgia’s children are provided with adequate financial support whether the children’s parents are living together or not living together. The General Assembly

finds that both parents have a continuing obligation with respect to providing financial and emotional stability for their child or children. It is the hope of the members of the General Assembly that all parents work together to advance the best interest of their children.” Ga. L. 2006, p. 583, § 10(b)/SB 382, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “Sections 1 through 7 of this Act shall become effective on January 1, 2007, and shall apply to all pending civil actions on or after January 1, 2007.” Law reviews. For article discussing Georgia alimony provisions allowing modification of judgments with respect to federal and state constitutional limitations, see 18 Ga. B.J. 153 (1955). For article surveying developments in Georgia domestic relations law from mid1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (1981). For survey article on domestic relations, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 113 (1982). For article on 2005 amendment of this Code section, see 22 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 73 (2005).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Counterclaim is petition for purposes of Ga. L. 1979, p. 466, § 26 and will support a trial court’s award of reasonable compensation for those attorney fees incurred solely in defense of the liable former spouse’s counterclaim. Wright v. Wright, 246 Ga. 81, 268 S.E.2d 666, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 973 (1980). Award of reasonable attorney fees to spouse contesting modification. - Spouse contesting modification sought by one obligated to pay may be awarded reasonable attorney fees during the pendency of the litigation, including an interlocutory award. Hilsman v. Hilsman, 245 Ga. 555, 266 S.E.2d 173, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 853 (1980). Discretion of court. - Trial court’s discretion in making an award under O.C.G.A. § 19-6-22 is not limited to a consideration of the financial circumstances of the party opposing modification. Shapiro v. Lipman, 259 Ga. 85, 377 S.E.2d 673, 1989 Ga. LEXIS 126 (1989). Trial court may grant attorney fees

if such fees are determined necessary to insure a proper defense, and upon consideration of the present financial circumstances of the parties. Hilsman v. Hilsman, 245 Ga. 555, 266 S.E.2d 173, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 853 (1980). While an award of attorney fees in a modification action is not mandatory or a condition precedent to bringing an application, the trial judge may in the exercise of judicial discretion, award attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation incurred during the pendency of the proceedings. Hilsman v. Hilsman, 245 Ga. 555, 266 S.E.2d 173, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 853 (1980). Attorney fees in action for change of custody. - O.C.G.A. § 19-6-22 does not authorize an award of attorney fees for an action for a change of custody. Haselden v. Haselden, 255 Ga. 366, 338 S.E.2d 257, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 491 (1986); Owen v. Owen, 183 Ga. App. 472, 359 S.E.2d 229, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1995 (1987).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Right of former wife to counsel fees upon application after absolute divorce to increase or decrease alimony, 15 A.L.R.2d 1252.

Right to attorneys’ fees in proceeding, after absolute divorce, for modification of child custody or support order, 57 A.L.R.4th 710.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2006 · leading case: Shapiro v. Lipman, 377 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shapiro v. Lipman, 377 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. 1989). · cites it 9× “Nonetheless, this holding does not require reversal of the trial court’s award of attorney fees to the wife because the trial court would have been authorized, in its discretion, to award her fees under OCGA § 19-6-22 which provides: Decided March 15, 1989.”

Jones v. Jones, 632 S.E.2d 121 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 4× “r the support of the children of the parties"); OCGA § 19-6-17(c) (where child support not determined in divorce is later granted in separate proceeding, order granting support is subject to modification under same terms as "provided for in other cases of permanent alimony for…”

Wehner v. Parris, 574 S.E.2d 921 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 12× “In addition to challenging the award of attorney fees, among other things, as failing to state whether the award was made under OCGA § 9-15-14 (a) or (b) or under OCGA § 19-6-22, Wehner now appeals contending: (a) that the superior court erred in awarding attorney fees as not…”

Monroe v. Taylor, 577 S.E.2d 810 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “We are guided by the Supreme Court’s explanation of OCGA § 19-6-22, which authorizes attorney fees to a party called upon to defend a petition under OCGA § 19-6-19 to modify alimony or child support, with no requirement that the defending party be the prevailing party.”

Haselden v. Haselden, 338 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. 1986). · cites it 4× “A trial on the appellee's counterclaim for an increase of alimony and child-support payments resulted in a verdict and judgment increasing the child-support payments. The plaintiff-father appeals from the judgment for the defendant-mother, and the appellee cross-appeals from the…”

Owen v. Owen, 359 S.E.2d 229 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “In any event, although an award of attorney fees is authorized under OCGA § 19-6-22 when the obligated spouse seeks to modify a permanent alimony judgment, they are not recoverable in an action where the noncustodial parent seeks a change of custody.”

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.