Perry v. Cases

Supreme Court of Georgia

Perry v. Cases

264 S.E.2d 228, 245 Ga. 298, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 772

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 20, 1980

Docket35862, 35863

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 264 S.E.2d 228 (Perry v. Cases) 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

Perry v. Cases, 264 S.E.2d 228, 245 Ga. 298, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 772 (Ga. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

Douglas and Barbara Perry were divorced in December, 1978, and property, child custody and visitation, and alimony and child support questions were settled by consent in January, 1979. On April 25,1979, the husband petitioned to hold his wife in contempt for violating the consent order and filed a separate complaint for modification of the custody, child support and visitation provisions of the consent order. Before his wife was served, however, she moved out of the state to Tennessee, but was served there on June 27, 1979. She defended both suits on venue grounds. The trial court dismissed the contempt petition and all counts of the modification complaint except the count brought under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Code Ann. Ch. 74-5. We granted his interlocutory application and reverse.

Under Franek v. Ray, 239 Ga. 282 (236 SE2d 629) (1977), the trial court erred in dismissing the contempt action and the counts of the modification petition not brought under the Uniform Act. "[V]enue will be determined as of the date of filing as long as service is subsequently perfected upon a defendant within a reasonable time period.” Accord, Brock Const. Co. v. Houston &c. Co., 144 Ga. App. 860 (243 SE2d 83) (1978). We reverse and remand for determination whether the husband used due diligence and served the wife within a reasonable time after filing the suit. Franek v. Ray, supra.

Judgments reversed and remanded.

All the Justices concur.

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

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

Douglas and Barbara Perry were divorced in December, 1978, and property, child custody and visitation, and alimony and child support questions were settled by consent in January, 1979. On April 25,1979, the husband petitioned to hold his wife in contempt for violating the consent order and filed a separate complaint for modification of the custody, child support and visitation provisions of the consent order. Before his wife was served, however, she moved out of the state to Tennessee, but was served there on June 27, 1979. She defended both suits on venue grounds. The trial court dismissed the contempt petition and all counts of the modification complaint except the count brought under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Code Ann. Ch. 74-5. We granted his interlocutory application and reverse.

Under Franek v. Ray, 239 Ga. 282 (236 SE2d 629) (1977), the trial court erred in dismissing the contempt action and the counts of the modification petition not brought under the Uniform Act. "[V]enue will be determined as of the date of filing as long as service is subsequently perfected upon a defendant within a reasonable time period.” Accord, Brock Const. Co. v. Houston &c. Co., 144 Ga. App. 860 (243 SE2d 83) (1978). We reverse and remand for determination whether the husband used due diligence and served the wife within a reasonable time after filing the suit. Franek v. Ray, supra.

Judgments reversed and remanded.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 S.E.2d 228, 245 Ga. 298, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-cases-ga-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack