O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-12-23 (2019)

Effect of consent judgment

✓ 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 consent of the parties to a judgment has the effect of removing any issuable defenses previously filed. After such a consent the court may render judgment without the verdict of a jury.

History

(Code 1981, § 9-12-23, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 1262, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Consent judgment not binding on nonparty. - Consent judgment and the determination therein that the settlement is ‘‘just and fair’’ are not binding upon a nonparty joint tortfeasor sued for contribution. Wilson v. Norfolk S. Corp., 200 Ga. App. 523, 409 S.E.2d 84 (1991). Testing consent judgment by extraordinary motion for new trial. - Putative father’s petition for a blood test was, in substance, an extraordinary motion for a new trial based on newly discov-

ered evidence and O.C.G.A. § 9-12-23 was not a barrier to his attack upon an earlier consent judgment entered in a support proceeding. Department of Human Resources v. Browning, 210 Ga. App. 546, 436 S.E.2d 742 (1993). Cited in New v. Wilkins, 178 Ga. App. 337, 343 S.E.2d 136 (1986); Venture Design, Ltd. v. Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc., 197 Ga. App. 432, 398 S.E.2d 781 (1990).

ARTICLE 2 EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1986–1993 · leading case: Dep't of Human Resources v. Browning, 436 S.E.2d 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
Dep't of Human Resources v. Browning, 436 S.E.2d 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “(c) DHR invokes OCGA § 9-12-23 and argues that Browning’s voluntary execution of the “Consent Agreement and Order” removes the possibility of relitigating paternity.”
Wilson v. Norfolk S. Corp., 409 S.E.2d 84 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “See generally OCGA § 9-12-23. Only plaintiff, Donna Angelica Corzo, by next friend, Donna Wilson Corzo, and defendant Norfolk, waived their right to trial by jury and consented to the entry of judgment.”
Venture Design, Ltd. v. Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc., 398 S.E.2d 781 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “The parties, including Venture, also expressly agreed to try all issues concerning liability, damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees without a jury and stipulated “that the total amount of liability to be apportioned to, between or among them, exclusive of costs, expenses…”
Daust v. Daust, 418 S.E.2d 409 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Since Sylvia Daust was a DeKalb County resident at the time the original action was filed, the preferred procedural approach in this case would have been for the respondent, Timothy Daust, to have filed a separate action in DeKalb County seeking a change in custody and then to…”
New v. Wilkins, 343 S.E.2d 136 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “" OCGA § 9-12-23. If either the father or mother had refused to accept the Fayette court's jurisdiction prior to these negotiations, the court would have been in error in preparing the judgment appealed from.”
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.