Brookins v. Brookins
Decision Date | 24 June 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 44481,44481 |
Citation | 257 Ga. 205,357 S.E.2d 77 |
Parties | BROOKINS v. BROOKINS. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Sheila Conners, Asst. Dist. Atty., Decatur, for State of Georgia, ex rel. Marie Brookins.
John L. Blandford, Chamblee, for James R. Brookins.
In the appellant-mother's present action against the appellee-father under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), OCGA Sec. 19-11-40 et seq., she alleged that the defendant was under a duty to support the parties' minor children under the parties' 1974 Ohio divorce decree, under which the defendant was allegedly in arrears in the amount of $27,534.86 as of May 31, 1985. The trial court--finding that the "plaintiff demands $33,102.13 in arrearage accruing under the Ohio decree"--dismissed the petition on the ground of res judicata, based on the appellant's two previous URESA actions against the appellee: in Georgia (in 1978) and in North Carolina (in 1982), in both of which cases the matter of the alleged arrearage under the Ohio decree was likewise pleaded, but both of the final orders were silent thereon. The Court of Appeals denied the appellant's application for discretionary appeal; this court granted certiorari. We reverse the trial court's order dismissing the petition.
1. In this URESA action to recover arrearage under the parties' prior support order pursuant to OCGA Secs. 19-11-51 and 19-11-63, the dismissal of the petition would be proper only if the rule of res judicata is applicable to either 1 or both of the two previous URESA orders.
(Emphasis supplied.) "A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside." (Emphasis supplied.) Matters are "put in issue by the pleadings in the previous litigation." Farmer v. Baird, 35 Ga.App. 208, 132 S.E. 260 (1926) and cits.
Thus, the matter of arrearage was put in issue by the mere allegations of the amounts thereof in the two previous URESA petitions. Farmer, supra. This is so even though this may have been intended as merely necessary allegata under the URESA, 2 and regardless of the absence of a specific prayer for such relief. Madison, Ltd. v. Price, 146 Ga.App. 837, 839(1), 247 S.E.2d 523 (1978) and cits.; Booker v. Booker, 107 Ga.App. 339, 341, 130 S.E.2d 260 (1963) and cit.; 18 EGL 273, Judgments & Decrees, Sec. 300 (1981 rev.), citing 50 C.J.S. 100, Judgments, Sec. 655. Even if it was not put in issue, however, "under the rules of law [it] might have been put in issue." OCGA Sec. 9-12-40. Nor would the silence of the previous URESA order(s) as to that issue prevent the bar of res judicata, if applicable. " 'The principle which fixes the absolute conclusiveness of a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the parties and their privies applies whether the reasons upon which it was based were sound or not, and even if no reasons at all were given....' " (Emphasis supplied.) McRae v. Boykin, 73 Ga.App. 67, 72, 35 S.E.2d 548 (1945) and cit.
2. However, a mechanical application of the res judicata rule in this situation would frustrate the purposes of the URESA, i.e., "to improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support and to make uniform the law with respect thereto." OCGA Sec. 19-11-41. URESA was designed to facilitate collection of support from absent parents in distant states (and counties, Ray v. Ray, 247 Ga. 467, 277 S.E.2d 495 (1981)) without incurring excessive transportation and litigation expenses. To this end, there are a number of cumulative remedies within the Act which can be utilized. The duties of support, including the duty to pay arrearages, are enforceable by requirements of a cash deposit or bond, payments at intervals to the court's probation department, and by civil contempt. OCGA Sec. 19-11-65. "If the duty of support is based on a foreign support order, the obligee has the additional remedies provided in Code Sections 19-11-77 through 19-11-81 [ ]." (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA Sec. 19-11-76. In State of Ga. v. McKenna, 253 Ga. 6, 9, 315 S.E.2d 885 (1984), we pointed out that, under OCGA Sec. 19-11-71, URESA orders do not affect, and are not bound by, prior foreign support orders/judgments, and sums paid under either order/judgment are credited against arrearages under both; and that there was the additional remedy of registering and enforcing foreign judgments, which, as here, was not in issue in the case. In Ray v. Ray, 247 Ga. 467, supra, p. 469, 277 S.E.2d 495, we held that compliance with the URESA order does not prevent arrearages from accruing under the prior support order.
Moreover, the remedies provided within the URESA are "in addition to and not in substitution of any other remedies." OCGA Sec. 19-11-45. McConaughey, Ga. Divorce, Alimony & Child Custody (2nd ed.), Sec. 14-9 (footnotes omitted). ." (Emphasis supplied.) Id., Sec. 14-13.
. (Emphasis supplied.) McConaughey, Ga. Divorce, Alimony & Child Custody, supra, Sec. 15-5.
The issue of arrearages sometimes may not be addressed in an order simply because the amount of arrearage cannot be determined readily and ordered paid, or the obligor may not be financially able at a particular time to make such payments. To apply a strict res judicata rule in this area might deter custodial parents from utilizing the URESA remedy or remedies for fear of waiving legal rights which at some later date may be determined to have been capable of litigation in the URESA proceeding. Thus, in Ray v. Ray, 247 Ga. 467, 277 S.E.2d 495, supra, we upheld the right of the obligee to enforce the original divorce decree ordering child support, by the payment of a monthly sum to be applied toward accrued arrearages, notwithstanding an intervening URESA order which had prospectively decreased the amount of the obligor's monthly child-support payments.
Our holding--that the order rendered by a responding court in a URESA proceeding is not res judicata in a subsequent action for arrearage under the original support order, subject to a set-off of any such arrearages already paid to prevent a double recovery--is in line with the position taken in other states interpreting the URESA. See e.g., Anno., 31 A.L.R.4th 347, 365, Sec. 6; Westberry v. Reynolds, 134 Ariz. 29, 653 P.2d 379 (1982); Elkind v. Byck, 68 Cal.2d 453, 67 Cal.Rptr. 404, 439 P.2d 316 (1968) ( Georgia law); Albus v. Albus, 503 A.2d 1229 (D.C.1986); Despain v. Despain, 78 Idaho 185, 300 P.2d 500 (1956); In re Marriage of Gifford, 152 Ill.App.3d 422, 105 Ill.Dec....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ga. Dept. of Human Resources v. Deason
...authorize an action to collect arrearages; Ga. L.1979, p. 941, §§ 1, 2 (OCGA §§ 9-11-43; 19-11-51; 19-11-63); Brookins v. Brookins, 257 Ga. 205, n. 1, 357 S.E.2d 77 (1987). Notwithstanding the absence of a provision specifically authorizing recovery for arrearages prior to 1979, such retroa......
-
Curling v. Raffensperger
...not a rigid rule of law.18 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 627 S.E.2d at 554 (Thompson, J., dissenting) (citing Brookins v. Brookins , 257 Ga. 205, 357 S.E.2d 77, 78 (1987) ("a mechanical application of the res judicata rule in this situation would frustrate the purposes of the URESA")).......
-
Rimsans v. Rimsans
...been a mere error of law which would have required the mother to seek correction by direct appeal. Id. Similarly, in Brookins v. Brookins, 257 Ga. 205, 357 S.E.2d 77 (1987), a former wife brought a second URESA action against her ex-husband to recover alleged child support arrears under the......
-
Baskin v. Hale
...Hardman v. Hardman , 295 Ga. 732, 735, 763 S.E.2d 861 (2014) (citations and punctuation omitted), quoting Brookins v. Brookins , 257 Ga. 205, 205–206, 357 S.E.2d 77 (1987) and Dial v. Adkins , 265 Ga.App. 650, 651, 595 S.E.2d 332 (2004). Although this case does not involve divorce, we find ......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...jurisdiction. O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-11-13 (Supp. 2004). 108. Dial, 265 Ga. App. at 651-52, 595 S.E.2d at 334 (citing Brookins v. Brookins, 257 Ga. 205, 207-08, 357 S.E.2d 77, 79 (1987)). See Bailey v. Hall, 266 Ga. App. 222, 599 S.E.2d 226 (2004) (refusing to apply res judicata in a legitimation ......
-
4 Garnishment
...to set aside fraudulent conveyances are available to the complaining spouse, either singly or concurrently.’ ” Brookins v. Brookins, 257 Ga. 205, 207(2), 357 S.E.2d 77 (1987) (citations omitted); Herring v. Herring, 138 Ga.App. 145(2), 225 S.E.2d 697 (1976) (wife may pursue garnishment and ......
-
4 Garnishment
...to set aside fraudulent conveyances are available to the complaining spouse, either singly or concurrently.’ ” Brookins v. Brookins, 257 Ga. 205, 207(2), 357 S.E.2d 77 (1987) (citations omitted); Herring v. Herring, 138 Ga.App. 145(2), 225 S.E.2d 697 (1976) (wife may pursue garnishment and ......
-
Domestic Relations
...(2014).120. Id. at 733, 733-34, 734, 736, 763 S.E.2d at 863, 863-64, 864.121. Id. at 735, 763 S.E.2d at 864 (quoting Brookins v. Brookins, 257 Ga. 205, 207, 357 S.E.2d 77, 79 (1987)).122. Id.123. Id. at 736, 734, 763 S.E.2d at 865, 867.124. Id. at 737, 763 S.E.2d at 866.125. 327 Ga. App. 83......