Helen Adenike Ogundana v. Anthony Adeniyi Ogundana

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 29, 2025
DocketA25A0180
StatusPublished

This text of Helen Adenike Ogundana v. Anthony Adeniyi Ogundana (Helen Adenike Ogundana v. Anthony Adeniyi Ogundana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Helen Adenike Ogundana v. Anthony Adeniyi Ogundana, (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

SECOND DIVISION RICKMAN, P. J., GOBEIL and DAVIS, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

May 29, 2025

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A25A0180. OGUNDANA v. OGUNDANA.

DAVIS, Judge.

Anthony Ogundana, the Father, filed an action against Helen Ogundana, the

Mother, in Cobb County. In her verified answer and again at a hearing, the Mother

took exception to venue. More specifically, she averred that venue was proper in the

county she resided — Fulton County. Believing the Mother had waived the improper

venue defense, the trial court moved forward. But since the record demonstrates that

the Mother preserved the venue defense, and because the evidence is uncontroverted

that the Mother did not reside in Cobb County, we vacate the decisions below with

direction. In August 2020, the Father brought a child custody action in Cobb County

against the Mother. When he could not locate her, the Father sought permission to

perfect service by publication, which the trial court granted. Meanwhile, during a

separate proceeding in Fulton County, the Mother happened to learn of the Father’s

suit pending in Cobb County. So, she filed a verified answer1 and raised several

defenses, among them improper venue:

I reside in Fulton County, Georgia. The Modification should have been filed in the county of my residence. I respectfully request that this matter be transferred to the Fulton County Superior Court.

Elsewhere in her answer, the Mother states, “I am currently a resident of Fulton

County, so jurisdiction and venue are not proper.”

A day later, the trial court held a previously scheduled hearing where the

Mother emphasized the defenses raised in her answer. In particular, the Mother

stated: “I would like to [tell] the [c]ourt that . . . the county . . . put in [the]

[complaint] is the wrong county. I don’t live in Cobb County . . . I live in Fulton

County.” Still, the trial court proceeded, stating: “Well, I’ve got the case right now.

1 In a verified answer, the defendant’s averments are made under oath. See OCGA § 9-11-11 (c). 2 And so I’m going to go forward with it.” Thereafter, it awarded temporary custody

to the Father after a temporary hearing on June 18, 2021 and eventually granted him

sole legal and physical custody in a final judgment dated July 26, 2023. This appeal

followed.2

On appeal, the Mother enumerates several errors and challenges venue. Since

venue is a threshold issue, we start there. See Equity Tr. Co. v. Jones, 339 Ga. App. 11,

14 (792 SE2d 458) (2016). If “the record contains any evidence to support the trial

court’s finding on venue,” we affirm “unless the evidence demands a contrary

finding.” Camp v. Peetluk, 262 Ga. App. 345, 348 (1) (585 SE2d 704) (2003). But as

always, “we review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed

facts.” HD Supply, Inc. v. Garger, 299 Ga. App. 751, 751 (683 SE2d 671) (2009).

First we consider whether the trial court erred when it determined the Mother

waived the defense of improper venue.3 The final judgment recognized that the

Mother challenged venue during the temporary hearing and raised the defense in her

2 The Father did not file a brief. 3 See OCGA § 9-11-12 (b), (h) (1) (B) (stating the defense of improper venue may be waived if omitted from a responsive pleading — if a responsive pleading is required). 3 answer but concluded the “Mother waived her venue defense . . . because her answer

was not timely filed.” While it is true that an answer must be filed within 60 days after

the trial court issues an order for service by publication, “[i]f the proof of service is

not filed . . . , the time for the party served to answer . . . shall not begin to run until

such proof of service is filed.” OCGA § 9-11-4 (f) (1) (C), (h). In case of publication,

“the certificate of the clerk of court certifying to the publication” serves as the proof.

OCGA § 9-11-4 (h) (3).

Here, because the clerk of court never filed a certificate certifying to the

publication, the Mother’s deadline to answer did not begin to run. See OCGA § 9-11-4

(h) (“If the proof of service is not filed . . . the time for the party served to answer the

process shall not begin to run. . . .”); see also Summers v. Wasdin, 337 Ga. App. 671,

672 (2) (a) (788 SE2d 573) (2016). And without a deadline to satisfy, the Mother’s

answer could not be untimely. See, e.g., Nally v. Bartow Cty. Grand Jurors, 280 Ga.

790, 792 (4) (633 S.E.2d 337) (2006)(“[T]he time for filing an answer never began to

run because [plaintiff] did not perfect service on any of the [defendants].”); OCGA

§ 9-11-12 (b) (“Every defense, in law or fact, . . . shall be asserted in the responsive

4 pleading . . . if one is required.”) (emphasis supplied). It follows then that Mother did

not waive her defense of improper venue under these circumstances.4

Having found the Mother did not waive the venue defense, the analysis from

this point is straightforward. To begin with, a “complaint seeking a change of legal

custody or physical custody shall be initiated in compliance with Article VI, Section

II, Paragraph VI of the Constitution of this state.” OCGA § 19-9-23 (a). Under Ga.

Const. Art. VI, § II, Para. VI, “civil cases . . . shall be tried in the county where the

defendant resides[.]” Accordingly, venue is a constitutional requirement and only

appropriate in the county where the defendant resides. See Goyal v. Fifadara, 324 Ga.

App. 567, 568 (751 SE2d 190) (2013).

In this case, the evidence shows that the Mother did not reside in Cobb County

at the time the Father filed his action. First, the Mother’s verified answer avers that

she resides in Fulton County and not Cobb County. Then, during the temporary

hearing, she told the trial court in open court that she did not live in Cobb County.

Finally, the Father knew the Mother had not resided in Cobb County “for more than

4 The Mother did not challenge the sufficiency, validity, and fact of service by omitting the affirmative defense in her answer. So, we address service only in the context of analyzing the answer deadline. Indeed, only after calculating the deadline can we determine the timeliness of the Mother’s answer. 5 two years” preceding his action. He said so, in fact, in support of his motion for

service by publication.

Because the trial court determined that venue was waived, it did not analyze the

residency issue or make any findings about venue.5 There is no record evidence that

would support a finding that venue was proper in Cobb County, given the Mother’s

sworn statements to the contrary and the sworn statements made by the Father stating

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

Related

Camp v. Peetluk
585 S.E.2d 704 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
Nally v. Bartow County Grand Jurors
633 S.E.2d 337 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2006)
HD Supply, Inc. v. Garger
683 S.E.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Lowe v. Lowe
725 S.E.2d 820 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
ROSS Et Al. v. WATERS
774 S.E.2d 195 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2015)
SUMMERS v. WASDIN Et Al. (Two Cases)
788 S.E.2d 573 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016)
Equity Trust Company v. Jones
792 S.E.2d 458 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016)
Thorpe v. Thorpe
492 S.E.2d 887 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)
Goyal v. Fifadara
751 S.E.2d 190 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Helen Adenike Ogundana v. Anthony Adeniyi Ogundana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helen-adenike-ogundana-v-anthony-adeniyi-ogundana-gactapp-2025.