Brand v. Brand

Supreme Court of Georgia

Brand v. Brand

259 S.E.2d 133, 244 Ga. 124, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1143

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 6, 1979

Docket34926

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 259 S.E.2d 133 (Brand v. Brand) 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

Brand v. Brand, 259 S.E.2d 133, 244 Ga. 124, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1143 (Ga. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, Justice.

A rule nisi may be used by the trial court to give notice of a permanent child custody hearing notwithstanding the practice that a rule nisi is more often used to give notice of preliminary, temporary or other interlocutory hearings. See Herring v. Standard Guaranty Ins. Co., 238 Ga. 261, 262 (232 SE2d 544) (1977). After the time for filing defense pleadings expires, *125 it is not error for such hearing to be set by rule nisi less than 30 days hence, as the time for trial is set by Code Ann. § 81A-140 (a), not Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) as contended by appellant’s counsel.

Argued May 15, 1979 Decided September 6, 1979. William A. Wehunt, for appellant. Ballard, Ozburn & Stephenson, Samuel D. Ozburn, for appellee.

The trial judge found that it was in the best interests of the children that custody be awarded to the father. There is evidence to support that award. Gazaway v. Brackett, 241 Ga. 127, 128 (244 SE2d 238) (1978); Anderson v. Anderson, 240 Ga. 795 (242 SE2d 593) (1978).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hill, Justice.

A rule nisi may be used by the trial court to give notice of a permanent child custody hearing notwithstanding the practice that a rule nisi is more often used to give notice of preliminary, temporary or other interlocutory hearings. See Herring v. Standard Guaranty Ins. Co., 238 Ga. 261, 262 (232 SE2d 544) (1977). After the time for filing defense pleadings expires, *125 it is not error for such hearing to be set by rule nisi less than 30 days hence, as the time for trial is set by Code Ann. § 81A-140 (a), not Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) as contended by appellant’s counsel.

Argued May 15, 1979 Decided September 6, 1979. William A. Wehunt, for appellant. Ballard, Ozburn & Stephenson, Samuel D. Ozburn, for appellee.

The trial judge found that it was in the best interests of the children that custody be awarded to the father. There is evidence to support that award. Gazaway v. Brackett, 241 Ga. 127, 128 (244 SE2d 238) (1978); Anderson v. Anderson, 240 Ga. 795 (242 SE2d 593) (1978).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 S.E.2d 133, 244 Ga. 124, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brand-v-brand-ga-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack