Whitaker v. Whitaker

Supreme Court of Georgia

Whitaker v. Whitaker

229 S.E.2d 603, 237 Ga. 739, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1372

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 28, 1976

Docket31268

StatusPublished

This text of 229 S.E.2d 603 (Whitaker v. Whitaker) 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

Whitaker v. Whitaker, 229 S.E.2d 603, 237 Ga. 739, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1372 (Ga. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

The wife in this divorce case was granted upon evidence, without notice to her husband, a .final judgment forty-five days¹ after he was served, but filed no answer. On the same day he sought to reopen the judgment under' Code Ann. § 81A-155 which allows for the reopening of default as a matter of right within 15 days after the answer is due. His motion was denied and he appeals claiming the divorce was premature, and defective on its face under Code Ann. § 81A-160 (d) because the record does not show he was notified of the hearing prior to judgment. We have decided these issues before and on the basis of this authority affirm the judgment of the trial court. Bradberry v. Bradberry, 232 Ga. 651 (208 SE2d 469) (1974); Harris v. Harris, 228 Ga. 562 (187 SE2d 139) (1972). See Newton v. Newton, 226 Ga. 440 (175 SE2d 543) (1970); Manning v. Manning, 223 Ga. 202 (154 SE2d 226) (1967).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

The wife in this divorce case was granted upon evidence, without notice to her husband, a .final judgment forty-five days¹ after he was served, but filed no answer. On the same day he sought to reopen the judgment under' Code Ann. § 81A-155 which allows for the reopening of default as a matter of right within 15 days after the answer is due. His motion was denied and he appeals claiming the divorce was premature, and defective on its face under Code Ann. § 81A-160 (d) because the record does not show he was notified of the hearing prior to judgment. We have decided these issues before and on the basis of this authority affirm the judgment of the trial court. Bradberry v. Bradberry, 232 Ga. 651 (208 SE2d 469) (1974); Harris v. Harris, 228 Ga. 562 (187 SE2d 139) (1972). See Newton v. Newton, 226 Ga. 440 (175 SE2d 543) (1970); Manning v. Manning, 223 Ga. 202 (154 SE2d 226) (1967).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.E.2d 603, 237 Ga. 739, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitaker-v-whitaker-ga-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack