Hillis v. Hillis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hillis v. Hillis

349 S.E.2d 746, 256 Ga. 438, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 916

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1986

Docket43745

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 349 S.E.2d 746 (Hillis v. Hillis) 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

Hillis v. Hillis, 349 S.E.2d 746, 256 Ga. 438, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 916 (Ga. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Weltner, Justice.

Hillis filed a complaint for divorce in Glynn County, in which she alleged that her husband was a resident of Glynn County. The husband filed and served a motion to transfer the case to Walker County on the ground that he was a resident of Walker County and not Glynn County. He filed an affidavit in support of this motion. The wife did not respond to the motion to transfer within the time prescribed by Rule 19.1 (D) of the Uniform Superior Court Rules, 253 Ga. 800, 830 (1985). The court granted the motion, holding that the “failure to timely file a written response to the defendant’s motion to transfer in accordance with Rule 19.1 (D) of the Uniform Superior Court Rules mandated that the Court, as a matter of law, grant the motion to transfer.” We granted the wife’s discretionary appeal.

The rule in question provides that “Unless otherwise ordered by the court, notice of a written motion to transfer shall be served upon all parties ... at least 10 days before the motion is heard. A party opposing a written motion to transfer shall notify the court and all other parties in writing within 10 days after service upon that party of the motion to transfer; such notice shall designate the basis upon which it is claimed that the court in which the action pends has jurisdiction and upon which venue is claimed to be proper.”

The rules were adopted in order to “provide for the speedy, efficient, and inexpensive resolution of disputes and prosecutions.” Constitution of Georgia of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. IX, Par. I. To this end, the superior court rules provide a uniform procedure for asserting improper venue or jurisdiction, and for responding to such assertions. Except in the plainest of circumstances, they should not be understood to divest the trial court of its inherent power to dispose of pending matters consistently with applicable principles of law, and in accordance with the facts of the case. The wife’s failure to file timely response cannot oust the trial court of that power.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. G. Carroll Palmatary, for appellee.

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

Weltner, Justice.

Hillis filed a complaint for divorce in Glynn County, in which she alleged that her husband was a resident of Glynn County. The husband filed and served a motion to transfer the case to Walker County on the ground that he was a resident of Walker County and not Glynn County. He filed an affidavit in support of this motion. The wife did not respond to the motion to transfer within the time prescribed by Rule 19.1 (D) of the Uniform Superior Court Rules, 253 Ga. 800, 830 (1985). The court granted the motion, holding that the “failure to timely file a written response to the defendant’s motion to transfer in accordance with Rule 19.1 (D) of the Uniform Superior Court Rules mandated that the Court, as a matter of law, grant the motion to transfer.” We granted the wife’s discretionary appeal.

The rule in question provides that “Unless otherwise ordered by the court, notice of a written motion to transfer shall be served upon all parties ... at least 10 days before the motion is heard. A party opposing a written motion to transfer shall notify the court and all other parties in writing within 10 days after service upon that party of the motion to transfer; such notice shall designate the basis upon which it is claimed that the court in which the action pends has jurisdiction and upon which venue is claimed to be proper.”

The rules were adopted in order to “provide for the speedy, efficient, and inexpensive resolution of disputes and prosecutions.” Constitution of Georgia of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. IX, Par. I. To this end, the superior court rules provide a uniform procedure for asserting improper venue or jurisdiction, and for responding to such assertions. Except in the plainest of circumstances, they should not be understood to divest the trial court of its inherent power to dispose of pending matters consistently with applicable principles of law, and in accordance with the facts of the case. The wife’s failure to file timely response cannot oust the trial court of that power.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. G. Carroll Palmatary, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 S.E.2d 746, 256 Ga. 438, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hillis-v-hillis-ga-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack