Department of Human Resources v. Chambers, No. A93A2087
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | ANDREWS; POPE |
| Citation | 211 Ga.App. 763,441 S.E.2d 77 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A2087 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1994 |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. CHAMBERS. |
Page 77
v.
CHAMBERS.
Page 78
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., William C. Joy, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., William M. Droze, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cynthia H. Frank, Staff Atty., for appellant.
McFarland & Associates, Robert P. McFarland, Charles E. Clark, for appellee.
ANDREWS, Judge.
Pursuant to a divorce decree in which Peggy Lee Chambers was awarded custody of her minor children, the father, Deryle Chambers, was ordered to pay child support through the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR). Mr. Chambers failed to make the required payments, accrued a substantial arrearage, and filed for protection
Page 79
under Chapter 13 of the Federal Bankruptcy Act.DHR ex rel. Ms. Chambers filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy action based on the child support arrearage which had accrued prior to the bankruptcy. After Mr. Chambers objected to the proof of claim, the bankruptcy judge entered an order lifting the automatic stay of 11 USC § 362 "for the limited purpose of allowing the Superior Court ... to conduct [a hearing] ... to determine the exact amount of pre-petition child support due...." The order further provided that the stay otherwise remained in effect, it being the intention of the bankruptcy court "that the issue of payment, collection or enforcement of the judgment return to this Court for further proceedings." Pursuant to the limited lift of stay, the superior court entered a judgment determining that Mr. Chambers owed $16,395 in pre-petition child support arrearage. However, in addition to determining the amount owed, the superior court also ordered that Mr. Chambers pay $4,600 of the arrearage under the Chapter 13 plan at not less than $90 per month; that $11,795 of the arrearage be paid outside of the plan at the rate of $325 per month, but that payment of this amount be delayed until one of the parties' two children residing with Ms. Chambers reached the age of 18, at which time interest would begin to accrue on the unpaid amount. The superior court further ordered that "[t]o the extent that Mr. Chambers complies with the terms of this order, then [Ms. Chambers] shall not commence any further contempt citations, attachments, garnishments, or other collection actions. This would include that [Ms. Chambers] would not apply for an abandonment warrant unless no payment has been made within thirty days of the time she wants to take the warrant."
We granted the application of DHR ex rel. Ms. Chambers for a discretionary appeal from the order of the superior court. DHR claims the superior court erred by: (1) ordering Ms. Chambers not to initiate any other enforcement or collection actions for child support; (2) ordering the postponement of arrearage payment until after a child reached the age of 18; and (3) ordering that interest accrue on the postponed arrearage only after a child reached age 18.
1. We first address whether or not the issues in this appeal have been rendered moot. The record reflects that after the notice of appeal was filed in this case, the trial court entered an order consented to by the parties which amended the payment terms of the previous court order from which this appeal was taken, and purported to settle the child support dispute between the parties. "The filing of the notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Peach Trader Inc., S17A1314
...App. 804, 805 (1), 510 S.E.2d 122 (1998) (affirming trial court's dismissal of a notice of appeal); Dep't of Human Res. v. Chambers , 211 Ga. App. 763, 765 (1), 441 S.E.2d 77 (1994) (affirming trial court's dismissal of an appeal for mootness); Attwell v. Lane Co. , 182 Ga. App. 813, 814 (1......
-
In re Rollins, Bankruptcy No. A93-67408-REB. Adversary No. 93-6598.
...process, as observed in the present case, is similarly subject to the stay. See generally Dep't of Human Resources v. Chambers, 211 Ga.App. 763, 765-66, 441 S.E.2d 77 (1994); accord Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 238 S.E.2d 920; see also Banks v. Wells, 256 Ga. 164, 344 S.E.2d 652 (distinguishing civ......
-
American Medical v. Parker, No. S07G1388.
...OCGA § 5-6-48(b)(3). Attwell v. Lane Co., 182 Ga.App. 813(1), 357 S.E.2d 142 (1987). See also Dept. of Human Resources v. Chambers, 211 Ga.App. 763, 765, 441 S.E.2d 77 (1994) ("A trial court is empowered to dismiss a notice of appeal where the questions presented have become moot"). This Co......
-
Davis v. Copelan, Nos. A94A1769
...42 USC § 1981. American Cyanamid Co. v. Carter, 164 Ga.App. 538, 539(1), 298 S.E.2d 276. Compare Dept. of Human Resources v. Chambers, 211 Ga.App. 763, 764(1), 441 S.E.2d 8. South Fulton enumerates as error the trial court's denial of summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Title......
-
Jones v. Peach Trader Inc., S17A1314
...App. 804, 805 (1), 510 S.E.2d 122 (1998) (affirming trial court's dismissal of a notice of appeal); Dep't of Human Res. v. Chambers , 211 Ga. App. 763, 765 (1), 441 S.E.2d 77 (1994) (affirming trial court's dismissal of an appeal for mootness); Attwell v. Lane Co. , 182 Ga. App. 813, 814 (1......
-
In re Rollins, Bankruptcy No. A93-67408-REB. Adversary No. 93-6598.
...process, as observed in the present case, is similarly subject to the stay. See generally Dep't of Human Resources v. Chambers, 211 Ga.App. 763, 765-66, 441 S.E.2d 77 (1994); accord Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 238 S.E.2d 920; see also Banks v. Wells, 256 Ga. 164, 344 S.E.2d 652 (distinguishing civ......
-
American Medical v. Parker, No. S07G1388.
...OCGA § 5-6-48(b)(3). Attwell v. Lane Co., 182 Ga.App. 813(1), 357 S.E.2d 142 (1987). See also Dept. of Human Resources v. Chambers, 211 Ga.App. 763, 765, 441 S.E.2d 77 (1994) ("A trial court is empowered to dismiss a notice of appeal where the questions presented have become moot"). This Co......
-
Davis v. Copelan, Nos. A94A1769
...42 USC § 1981. American Cyanamid Co. v. Carter, 164 Ga.App. 538, 539(1), 298 S.E.2d 276. Compare Dept. of Human Resources v. Chambers, 211 Ga.App. 763, 764(1), 441 S.E.2d 8. South Fulton enumerates as error the trial court's denial of summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Title......