Dansby v. Dansby
| Decision Date | 05 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23386,23386 |
| Parties | Horace DANSBY v. Annie Lois DANSBY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of Georgia (Ga.L.1958, p. 34) does not violate the due process clauses of the Constitutions of the United States or of the State of Georgia, as the Act provides for notice and hearing to the defendant charged with failure to support his four dependent children who were living with their mother in Michigan.
2. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of Georgia does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States nor the provision of the Constitution of Georgia providing that protection to persons and property shall be impartial and complete, as the Act treats all fathers living in this State with dependent children in another State alike, and thus meets the requirement of equal protection that all persons be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions.
Claude V. Driver, Buchanan, for appellant.
Dan Winn, Sol. Gen., Cedartown, for appellee.
The appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of Georgia (Ga.L.1958, p. 34), particularly section 16 thereof, on the ground that the Act and section 16 thereof violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution of the United States (Code § 1-815) and the Constitution of Georgia, art. 1, § 1, pars. 2, 3 (Code Ann. §§ 2-102, 103). His appeal is from a judgment of the trial court overruling his general demurrer to the action brought against him. He enumerates as error the overruling of his general demurrer.
The case arose on a petition filed by Annie Lois Dansby, appellee, in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Mich., under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of the State of Michigan, alleging that she resides in Detroit, Mich., is the lawful wife of Horace Dansby, that he resides in Haralson County, Ga., that she is the mother and Horace the father of four minor children, ages six to fifteen years, all born in Villa Rica, Ga.; that the children reside with her, and that the father owes a duty of support, and that he has failed, neglected and refused to support them or contribute anything to their support since March, 1965; that under the Michigan Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act she is entitled to a certificate from that court that respondent owes a duty of support to the named children, and the prayer of the petition was that the Michigan court 'certify that this petition sets forth facts from which it may be determined by the Superior Court of Haralson County, that the respondent owes a duty of support' to the named children. The court issued such certificate and forwarded it, together with the petition and a copy of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, to the Superior Court of Haralson County, Ga., as required by the Michigan Act.
The Superior Court of Haralson County issued 'Summons and Rule Nisi under the Uniform Reciprocal Act' as follows:
'It is hereby ordered that said defendant be served with a copy of this order and with a copy of the petition filed in this court and be made to show cause before me on the 8th. day November, 1965, at the courthouse in Haralson County, Georgia at 1:30 o'clock, p.m., why this court should not pass an order directing defendant to support the plaintiff and his dependents as provided by law.
'This 19th day of October, 1965.' (Signed by the Judge of the Superior Court of Haralson County).'
This summons and rule nisi was served upon Horace Dansby and he responded by filing general demurrers.
1. Section 16 of the Act (Code Ann. § 99-917a.) provides: 'When the court of this State, acting as a responding State, receives from the court of an initiating State the aforesaid copies, it shall (1) docket the cause, (2) notify the solicitor general, (3) set a time and place for a hearing, and (4) take such action as is necessary in accordance with the laws of this State to obtain jurisdiction.' Due process of law as guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions includes notice and hearing as a matter of right where one's property rights are involved. Sikes v. Pierce, 212 Ga. 567(2), 94 S.E.2d 427; Robitzsch v. State, 189 Ga. 637, 7 S.E.2d 387; Southern R. Co. v. Town of Temple, 209 Ga. 722, 724, 75 S.E.2d 554. The fundamental idea in 'due process of law' is that of 'notice' and 'hearing.' Arthur v. State, 146 Ga. 827, 828, 92 S.E. 637; Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734; Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865; Central of Ga. Ry. Co., v. Wright, 207 U.S. 127, 28 S.Ct. 47, 52 L.Ed. 134. Thus in deciding whether this Act denies due process of law to the defendant husband, we must determine whether the Act provides for notice and hearing to him. Section 16 provides that the judge must 'set a time and place for a hearing' on the petition seeking judgment requiring defendant to support his children, and that the court shall 'take such action as is necessary in accordance with the laws of this State to obtain jurisdiction.' The obvious meaning of this is that the court must provide service of the petition upon the defendant and that he be given 'notice,' and 'hearing,' as the laws of this State so provide. Under the laws of this State an action for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ga. Dept. of Human Resources v. Deason
...are the only defenses to an URESA action in the responding state, Georgia. See OCGA § 9-12-130 et seq.; Dansby v. Dansby, 222 Ga. 118, 120-121(1), 149 S.E.2d 252 (1966); Dept. of Human Resources v. Fenner, 235 Ga.App. 233, 234(2), 510 S.E.2d 534 (1998). The Florida child support judgment an......
-
Schumacher v. City of Roswell, A16A0582.
...State Constitutions includes notice and hearing as a matter of right where one's property rights are involved." Dansby v. Dansby , 222 Ga. 118, 120 (1), 149 S.E.2d 252 (1966). See Sikes v. Pierce , 212 Ga. 567, 568 (2), 94 S.E.2d 427 (1956) ("It is a prerequisite to the validity of a munici......
-
Rutledge v. Gaylord's, Inc.
...and complete is the equivalent of a declaration that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.' Dansby v. Dansby, 222 Ga. 118, 121, 149 S.E.2d 252, 255. The rules by which this Act must be tested are set forth in Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Co. v. Adkins, 156 Ga. ......
-
G. W. v. State
...S.E. 977; Meyers v. Whittle, 171 Ga. 509(3), 156 S.E. 120.' Garmon v. State, 219 Ga. 575, 578, 134 S.E.2d 796, 799.' Dansby v. Dansby, 222 Ga. 118, 121, 149 S.E.2d 252, 255. The judgment appealed from in this case was the final judgment to be entered in the case by any court in Georgia and ......