Allen v. Department of Human Resources

441 S.E.2d 754, 264 Ga. 119, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 1321, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 293
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 18, 1994
DocketS94A0397
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 441 S.E.2d 754 (Allen v. Department of Human Resources) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen v. Department of Human Resources, 441 S.E.2d 754, 264 Ga. 119, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 1321, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 293 (Ga. 1994).

Opinions

Carley, Justice.

When appellant-defendant was divorced in South Carolina, he was ordered to pay monthly child support of $300. After appellant’s ex-wife moved to Georgia, she applied to appellee-plaintiff Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) for child support enforcement services. DHR filed a complaint on behalf of the child, seeking an initial domestication of the South Carolina divorce decree and a modification of that domesticated divorce decree so as to increase ap[120]*120pellant’s child support obligation.

Appellant’s motion to dismiss DHR’s complaint was denied and, on appeal, the authority of DHR to pursue such a domestication-modification action was upheld. Allen v. Dept. of Human Resources, 262 Ga. 521 (423 SE2d 383) (1992). Thereafter, a bench trial was held and a final order was entered which domesticated the South Carolina divorce decree and modified appellant’s child support obligation upward to $800 per month. However, the $500 monthly increase was not made prospective from the date of domestication and modification. Instead, the trial court’s order specified that the increase was to be retroactive to the date that DHR had initiated the action.

Appellant’s application for a discretionary appeal was granted, in order to determine whether the trial court erred in ordering that the $500 monthly increase was to be effective retroactively to the date of filing rather than prospectively from the date of domestication and modification.

[A] permanent child support judgment is res judicata and enforceable until modified, vacated or set aside. [Cit.] . . . Until a final decree amending the child support is properly entered in the modification proceeding the permanent judgment stands. [Cit.] A child support judgment can not be modified retroactively. [Cit.]

Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560, 561 (1) (385 SE2d 279) (1989). See also Hendrix v. Stone, 261 Ga. 874 (1) (412 SE2d 536) (1992). It follows that the trial court’s ruling is erroneous insofar as it gives retroactive effect to the $500 monthly increase in appellant’s child support obligation. Accordingly, that portion of the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded with direction that the trial court amend its order to specify that the increase is to be prospective from the date of domestication and modification.

Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hector Perez, Jr. v. Christina Cunningham
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2020
James-Dickens v. Petit-Compere
683 S.E.2d 83 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Georgia Dept. of Human Resources v. Gamble.
677 S.E.2d 713 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Department of Human Resources v. Gould
474 S.E.2d 682 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Allen v. Department of Human Resources
441 S.E.2d 754 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
441 S.E.2d 754, 264 Ga. 119, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 1321, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-department-of-human-resources-ga-1994.