Binns v. Smith, 40357
| Decision Date | 04 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 40357,40357 |
| Citation | 310 S.E.2d 225,251 Ga. 861 |
| Parties | BINNS v. SMITH. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Joseph T. Tuggle, Jr., McCamy, Phillips, Tuggle Rollins & Fordham, Dalton, for Jhan Kiker Binns, formerly Smith, et al.
Don W. Johnson, Dalton, for Virgil Timothy Smith, II.
The sole question presented in this appeal is whether or not the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq. (Code Ann. § 74-501 et seq.), can be the basis for jurisdiction in the courts of this state over a person residing in a foreign country.
The question arises because a former wife, granted custody of the children of the marriage by the Superior Court of Whitfield County, Georgia, has removed from the State of Georgia, and, being now domiciled in Canada, has filed, together with her new husband, adoption proceedings in the courts of that country. Thereafter, the former husband filed an application in the Superior Court of Whitfield County to change custody of the two children, and sought to perfect service on the former wife under the terms of OCGA § 19-9-45(a)(2) (Code Ann. § 74-506), in a manner apparently appropriate for the service of process in the courts of Canada.
The former wife has not been served within the State of Georgia, nor has she consented to the jurisdiction of Whitfield Superior Court. OCGA § 19-9-52 (Code Ann. § 74-513). To the contrary, she filed a plea to the jurisdiction, the denial of which is the basis of this appeal.
If the Whitfield Superior Court is to have jurisdiction over the former wife and the children, it must be found in OCGA § 19-9-45(a)(2) (Code Ann. § 74-506), authorizing notice to a person "outside this state" to be given "In the manner prescribed by the law of the place in which the service is made...." As the Act is in the nature of a compact between states of the United States, we interpret the word "place" to be the equivalent of "state," defined in OCGA § 19-9-42(10) (Code Ann. § 74-503) as "any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia." Because foreign nations fall without this provision, it follows that the Whitfield Superior Court is without jurisdiction over the former wife or the children, and her plea to the jurisdiction should have been sustained.
Nothing we say here is contradictory to Youmans v. Youmans, 247 Ga. 529, 276 S.E.2d 837 (1981), or Yearta...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldstein v. Goldstein
...of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia." Richardson v. Richardson, 257 Ga. 101(2), 355 S.E.2d 664 (1987); Binns v. Smith, 251 Ga. 861, 310 S.E.2d 225 (1984). Accordingly, the jurisdictional provisions of the UCCJA do not apply in the international arena so as to confer jurisdiction up......
-
F.O. Thacker Contracting Co. v. C.W. Matthews Contracting Co., Inc., s. 40391
... ... Marva Jones-Brooks, City Atty., Gary S. Walker, Asst. City Atty., Kent P. Smith, Robert O. Fleming, Jr., Smith & Fleming, Atlanta, for C.W. Matthews Contracting Co., Inc., et al ... ...
-
Richardson v. Richardson
...territories, or possessions of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Binns v. Smith, 251 Ga. 861, 310 S.E.2d 225 (1984). One of the stated purposes of the Act is to "avoid jurisdictional competition with courts of the states in matters of custody.......