O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-92 (2019)

Awarding of necessary and reasonable expenses

✓ 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

(a) The court shall award the prevailing party, including a state, necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by or on behalf of the party, including costs, communication expenses, attorney’s fees, investigative fees, expenses for witnesses, travel expenses, and child care during the course of the proceedings, unless the party from whom fees or expenses are sought establishes that the award would be clearly inappropriate.

(b) The court may not assess fees, costs, or expenses against a state unless authorized by law other than this article.

History

Code 1981, § 19-9-92, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Only applicable to prevailing party in enforcement proceeding. - Costs and attorney fees are allowable under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-92 only to the prevailing

party in an enforcement proceeding, not to a party prevailing on the issue of jurisdiction. Delgado v. Combs, 314 Ga. App. 419, 724 S.E.2d 436, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 206

(2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1106, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 602 (Ga. June 18, 2012). Parent entitled to fees and costs for enforcement of foreign child custody decree. - Georgia trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to a parent for enforcing an Indiana child custody decree was authorized under O.C.G.A. §§ 199-90 and 19-9-92, although the Indiana order had not been registered; the parent’s

petition was brought primarily under O.C.G.A. §§ 19-9-83 and 19-9-88 to enforce the visitation provisions of the existing decree; that the parent also requested modification and domestication of the custody determination did not change the result. Ward v. Smith, 334 Ga. App. 876, 780 S.E.2d 702, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 742 (2015).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2021 · leading case: Delgado v. Combs, 724 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Delgado v. Combs, 724 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 20× “Delgado requested attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-68 and OCGA § 19-9-92 under the UCCJEA and filed an affidavit in support of same without objection.”

N.S. v. D.M., 231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 67 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “Accordingly, Mother cannot rely on section 3452 to recover expenses she incurred to oppose Father's Illinois modification petition, which appears to have been at the center of the parties' dispute.”

Ward v. Smith, 780 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 14× “Contrary to Ward’s contention, the trial court did not err in awarding attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-92. The trial court ordered Ward to pay [Smith] the total sum of $5,480.”

Dillon Brooks v. Heather Avery Andrews (2021). “419, 431-32 (2012) (“In complying with the mandate that we consider the need to promote uniformity of the [UCCJEA] with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it, we, too, hold that OCGA § 19-9-92 applies only to the prevailing party in an enforcement proceeding.”

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.