O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-7-41 (2019)

Service outside state

✓ 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

In a proceeding under this article, the court, pursuant to Chapter 11 of Title 9, may order service upon a person outside the state upon a finding that there is a constitutionally permissible basis for jurisdiction over the person, including those enumerated in Article 3 of Chapter 11 of this title.

History

Code 1933, § 74-302, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1374, § 1; Ga. L. 1997, p. 1613, § 16.

Annotations

Law reviews. For survey article on domestic relations, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 113 (1982).

For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 121 (1997).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Section satisfies minimum contacts test for judgment against out-of-state defendant. - Now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, due process requires only that in order to subject defendant to judgment in personam, if defendant is not present within territory of forum, he must have certain minimum contacts such that maintenance of suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. O.C.G.A. § 19-7-41 satisfies this requirement. Bell v. Arnold, 248 Ga. 9, 279 S.E.2d 449, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 867 (1981). Service based on statute’s requirements not inconsistent with ends of justice. - When it was shown that the minor child was conceived as a result of sexual intercourse between the child’s mother and the defendant in Georgia and that the child’s mother continued to reside in Georgia, the trial court erred in finding that out-of-state service upon the defendant pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-7-41 would be inconsistent with the ends of justice. Department of Human Resources v. Estes, 208 Ga. App. 872, 432 S.E.2d 613, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 740 (1993). No bar to paternity action by natural mother or child. - Illegitimate child cannot be barred from bringing a paternity suit under O.C.G.A. Art. 3, Ch. 7, T. 19, and because the natural mother should be made a party to such a suit,

notwithstanding a private contract to the contrary, the natural mother is prevented neither from initiating, nor from participating as a party in an action under that article. Worthington v. Worthington, 250 Ga. 730, 301 S.E.2d 44, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 624 (1983). Service barred if conception was outside state. - When the plaintiff asserted that her child was conceived as a result of an act of sexual intercourse in California, the essential fact necessary to support personal service of process outside Georgia was absent. Garvey v. Mendenhall, 199 Ga. App. 241, 404 S.E.2d 613, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 423 (1991), cert. denied, No. S91C0982, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 736 (Ga. May 22, 1991). Denial of motion to order service held error. - Denial of a motion made under O.C.G.A. § 19-7-41 in connection with an action to determine paternity and establish child support obligations of the putative, nonresident father was error since there was no question that the child was conceived as a result of an act of sexual intercourse within this state while either parent was a resident of this state and since it appeared that the trial court’s ruling was based solely on a URESA (O.C.G.A. § 19-11-1 et seq.) analysis, although § 19-7-41 does not require the court to order service. Department of Human Resources v. McCormick, 208 Ga. App. 751, 431 S.E.2d 740, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 676 (1993).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Illegitimate Children, §§ 40, 41. 24A Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation, § 862. C.J.S. 27C C.J.S., Divorce, § 1044.

ALR. Right of illegitimate child to maintain action to determine paternity, 19 A.L.R.4th 1082.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1987–1993 · leading case: Garvey v. Mendenhall, 404 S.E.2d 613 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Garvey v. Mendenhall, 404 S.E.2d 613 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “Garvey moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under either the Georgia long arm statute, OCGA § 9-10-91 (1), or the paternity statute, OCGA § 19-7-41. He contended that his social visits to Georgia to date Mendenhall and other social contact with her in…”

Allen v. Howard, 365 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Allen’s contention that personal jurisdiction was lacking because service was not perfected outside the state in accordance with OCGA § 19-7-41 is without merit, since personal service was perfected in Catoosa County, Georgia.”

Meredith v. Meredith, 360 S.E.2d 586 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 2× “She relies upon OCGA § 19-7-41, providing for service for paternity suits on a non-resident defendant, and the Long Arm Statute, OCGA § 9-10-91 (5).”

Dep't of Human Resources v. McCormick, 431 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “We granted this interlocutory appeal to review the denial of the Georgia Department of Human Resources’ motion for service outside the state, filed pursuant to OCGA § 19-7-41. Under OCGA § 19-7-41, a court may order service outside the state in a paternity action “upon a finding…”

Dep't of Human Resources v. Estes, 432 S.E.2d 613 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “DHR then moved for service on Estes outside of the state, pursuant to OCGA § 19-7-41. Although conceding that the factual showing contained in DHR’s motion was sufficient to authorize such service, the trial court denied the motion on the grounds that compelling Estes to incur…”

Jones v. Alfone, 404 S.E.2d 119 (Ga. 1991). “This construction is supported by § 19-7-41, which provides for service of a non-resident defendant without resort to the Long Arm Statute and § 19-7-42, which requires venue in Georgia even if the putative father is a non-resident.”

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.