Franek v. Ray, No. 31982
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | BOWLES |
| Citation | 236 S.E.2d 629,239 Ga. 282 |
| Parties | Robert A. FRANEK v. Victoria J. RAY. |
| Docket Number | No. 31982 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1977 |
Page 629
v.
Victoria J. RAY.
Page 630
[239 Ga. 286] Donner, Brown & Rosenbluth, Atlanta, Richard T. Winegarden, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
William P. Smith, III, Decatur, for appellee.
[239 Ga. 282] BOWLES, Justice.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Superior Court of DeKalb County. The sole issue before this court is whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to determine and modify custody of the two minor children of the parties.
Robert A. Franek, the appellant, and Victoria J. Ray, the appellee, were divorced on June 21, 1974, custody of their two minor children being granted to the appellee pursuant to an agreement by the parties. On January 24, 1975, by order of the Superior Court of DeKalb County, custody of the children was taken from the appellee and granted to the appellant. In June, 1976, in accordance with the visitation privileges, set forth in the custody decree of January, 1975, the appellant delivered the two minor children to the appellee with the understanding that they were to be returned to the appellant one month later. On June 16, 1975, the appellee filed a petition for a change of custody in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, but no service was had on the appellant at that time. Subsequent to the filing of this petition, the appellant removed himself from the State of Georgia and became physically located in the State of Texas. The appellant contended that the move was prompted by a change in employment, and was not personally served with process in regard to the June 16th suit until September 27, 1976, service being made upon him in Houston, Texas, by a sheriff of that state.
On the date when the children were to be returned to the custody of appellant, the appellee notified the appellant that she would not release the children to him. The appellant thereupon filed a petition in the Superior [239 Ga. 283] Court of DeKalb County for citation of contempt on September 2, 1976, seeking to regain custody under the existing order of January, 1975. A consolidated hearing on the petition for change in custody and petition for citation of contempt was held on October 18, 1976 before a judge of the Superior Court of DeKalb County to decide whether or not the court had jurisdiction over the custody issue. There was no testimony given at the hearing nor was any transcript of the argument of counsel made. The trial judge decided that jurisdiction over the children of the parties for purposes of determining matters of custody was properly laid in the Superior Court of DeKalb County. It is from this order that appellant moved for a Certification of Immediate Review, which was signed by the trial judge, and granted by this court.
Page 631
It is well settled in this state that after an award of custody, any further proceedings relating to the custody of the children must be brought in the county wherein the defendant resides. Goodloe v. Goodloe, 211 Ga. 894, 89 S.E.2d 654 (1955). Where a divorce decree is granted and custody is awarded to one parent who then moves to another county, a petition for change of custody brought by the other parent in the previous county would have to be dismissed for improper venue. Gibbs v. North, 211 Ga. 231, 84 S.E.2d 833 (1954). When the parent awarded custody in Georgia moves to a foreign state, that state, and not Georgia, has jurisdiction over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Cottrell Inc., Civil Action No. 2:10–CV–00268–WCO.
...distinction, as filing a suit “is still not the commencement of suit unless followed by service within a reasonable time.” Franek v. Ray, 239 Ga. 282, 236 S.E.2d 629, 632 (1977). Thus, under Georgia law, “an [785 F.Supp.2d 1372] action is not a ‘pending’ suit until after service of process ......
-
Lau v. Klinger, No. CV 498-102.
...will relate back to the original date of the filing which will be considered the date of the commencement of the law suit." Franek v. Ray, 239 Ga. 282, 236 S.E.2d 629, 632 (1997); O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(c) ("When service is to be made within this state, the person making such service shall make ......
-
Thorburn Co. v. ALLIED MEDIA OF GEORGIA, No. A99A0637.
...199 Ga.App. 760, 406 S.E.2d 99 (1991); Hilton v. Maddox &c. Contractors, 125 Ga.App. 423, 188 S.E.2d 167 (1972); see also Franek v. Ray, 239 Ga. 282, 285, 236 S.E.2d 629 (1977). Service of the summons and the complaint together is required. OCGA § 9-11-4(d); Stamps v. Bank South, N.A., 221 ......
-
Hawkins v. Cottrell Inc., NO. 2:10-CV-00268-WCO
...distinction, as filing a suit "is still not the commencement of suit unless followed by service within a reasonable time." Franek v. Ray, 236 S.E.2d 629, 632 (Ga. 1977). Thus, under Georgia law, "an action is not a 'pending' suit until after service of process is perfected." Steve A. Martin......
-
Hawkins v. Cottrell Inc., Civil Action No. 2:10–CV–00268–WCO.
...distinction, as filing a suit “is still not the commencement of suit unless followed by service within a reasonable time.” Franek v. Ray, 239 Ga. 282, 236 S.E.2d 629, 632 (1977). Thus, under Georgia law, “an [785 F.Supp.2d 1372] action is not a ‘pending’ suit until after service of process ......
-
Lau v. Klinger, No. CV 498-102.
...will relate back to the original date of the filing which will be considered the date of the commencement of the law suit." Franek v. Ray, 239 Ga. 282, 236 S.E.2d 629, 632 (1997); O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(c) ("When service is to be made within this state, the person making such service shall make ......
-
Thorburn Co. v. ALLIED MEDIA OF GEORGIA, No. A99A0637.
...199 Ga.App. 760, 406 S.E.2d 99 (1991); Hilton v. Maddox &c. Contractors, 125 Ga.App. 423, 188 S.E.2d 167 (1972); see also Franek v. Ray, 239 Ga. 282, 285, 236 S.E.2d 629 (1977). Service of the summons and the complaint together is required. OCGA § 9-11-4(d); Stamps v. Bank South, N.A., 221 ......
-
Hawkins v. Cottrell Inc., NO. 2:10-CV-00268-WCO
...distinction, as filing a suit "is still not the commencement of suit unless followed by service within a reasonable time." Franek v. Ray, 236 S.E.2d 629, 632 (Ga. 1977). Thus, under Georgia law, "an action is not a 'pending' suit until after service of process is perfected." Steve A. Martin......