O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-12-115 (2019)

Procedure for recognition

✓ 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) If recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought as an original matter, the issue of recognition shall be raised by filing an action seeking recognition of such foreign-country judgment. (b) If recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought in a pending action, the issue of recognition may be raised by counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim. (c) Chapter 11 of this title shall apply to any claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim for recognition of a foreign-country judgment.

History

(Code 1981, § 9-12-115, enacted by Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 2-1/SB 65.)

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 1-1/SB 65, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: ‘‘(a) This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Debtor Creditor Uniform Law Modernization Act of 2015.’ ‘‘(b) To promote consistency among the states, it is the intent of the General Assembly to modernize certain existing uniform laws promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission affecting debtor and

creditor rights, responsibilities, and relationships and other federally recognized laws affecting such rights, responsibilities, and relationships.’’ Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 2-1, effective July 1, 2015, redesignated former Code Section 9-12-115 as present Code Section Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 7-1/SB 65, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part: ‘‘Part 2 of this Act shall apply to all actions filed on or after July 1, 2015, in which the recognition of a foreign country judgment is raised.’’

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1999–1999 · leading case: Yoo v. Parker, 526 S.E.2d 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yoo v. Parker, 526 S.E.2d 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “101, 102 ( 332 SE2d 394 ) (1985); see also OCGA § 9-12-115 (a) (2) (setting forth essentially the same rule as that *48 applied in Van Buskirk , but inapplicable to judgments rendered in sister states as provided in OCGA § 9-12-111).”
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.