Graves v. Graves, s. 75450

Decision Date01 March 1988
Docket Number75687,Nos. 75450,s. 75450
CitationGraves v. Graves, 366 S.E.2d 809, 186 Ga.App. 140 (Ga. App. 1988)
PartiesGRAVES v. GRAVES (Two Cases).
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Charles V. Choyce, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.

William J. Self II, Macon, for appellee.

CARLEY, Judge.

Appellant is a resident of Putnam County.In his capacity as the custodial parent of two minor children, appellant instituted an action against appellee, his former wife, seeking an award of child support from her and a modification of her visitation rights.Appellant filed his action in the Superior Court of Bibb County, the county of appellee's residence.Appellee answered appellant's complaint and counterclaimed to have custody of the minor children changed from APPELLANT to herself.In her counterclaim, appellee alleged that appellant had voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of Bibb County by filing his complaint for modification.The Superior Court of Bibb County transferred the issue of child custody and visitation rights for determination by the Juvenile Court of Bibb County.In the juvenile court, appellant moved to dismiss appellee's counterclaim for a change of custody, contending that venue was improper in Bibb County.The juvenile court denied appellant's motion and entered an order awarding custody of the minor children to appellee.After the juvenile court awarded custody to appellee, the superior court entered an order granting child support to appellee.Appellant subsequently filed a motion pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60(d), wherein he sought to have the superior court set aside its child support order.Appellant's motion was denied.

In case no. 75687, this court granted appellant's application for a discretionary appeal from the juvenile court's order awarding child custody to appellee.In case no. 75450, appellant brings a direct appeal from the superior court's order denying his motion to set aside its award of child support to appellee.The two cases are hereby consolidated for disposition in this single opinion.

Case No. 75687

1.Appellant enumerates as error the failure of the juvenile court to grant the motion to dismissappellee's counterclaim for child custody.This enumeration is controlled by our decision in Jones v. Jones, 178 Ga.App. 794, 344 S.E.2d 677(1986), aff'd256 Ga. 742, 352 S.E.2d 754(1987).In Jones, this court held that where the custodial parent seeks the modification of the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent and has filed his petition in the county of the residence of the noncustodial parent, the noncustodial parent cannot seek a change of custody by filing a counterclaim but, instead, must file a separate action in the county of residence of the custodial parent.Jones v. Jones, 178 Ga.App.supra at 796, 344 S.E.2d 754.Accordingly, appellee's counterclaim was improper and the juvenile court erred in denying appellant's motion to dismiss the counterclaim.

2.Appellant has moved this court for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation under § 9-15-14."We do not address the merits of appell[ant]'s motion for attorney fees[and expenses of litigation] under OCGA § 9-15-14 for such a motion properly addresses itself to the trial court for disposition."Chrysler Corp. v. Marinari, 182 Ga.App. 399, 403(4), 355 S.E.2d 719(1987).

Case No. 75450

3.Appellant enumerates as error the superior court's denial of the motion to set aside its award of child support to appellee.However, appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal for appellant's failure to follow the discretionary appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35.

"Under the provisions of OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(2), appeals from judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, child custody, and other domestic relations cases must be taken by application.Matters of child support fall into the category of 'other domestic relations' and are therefore within the purview of OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(2).[Cit.]"Roach v. Roach, 182 Ga.App. 122-123, 354 S.E.2d 877(1987).Additionally, OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(8) requires that an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment is discretionary and must be taken by application."Appeals from the denial of [a motion to set aside a judgment] are discretionary and appellant did not follow the applicable procedure to secure appellate review of the denial of his motion.[Cits.]"Lewis v. Sun Mgt., 182 Ga.App. 560, 356 S.E.2d 526(1987).See alsoGoodwin v. Richmond,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • Collins v. Davis
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 2012
    ...Resources, 317 Ga.App. 426, 731 S.E.2d 110 (2012); Davis v. Welch, 205 Ga.App. 462, 463, 422 S.E.2d 323 (1992); Graves v. Graves, 186 Ga.App. 140, 142(3), 366 S.E.2d 809 (1988). We note that these cases specifically dealt with awards of child support; custody and visitation issues were not ......
  • Tampa Motel Management Co. v. Stratton of Florida, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 1, 1988
  • Bailey v. Bailey
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 2007
    ...the statute, even where it appears to defy logic. Terry, supra, 274 Ga.App. at 408, 618 S.E.2d 6 [(1)]. (Punctuation omitted.) See also Graves v. Graves.10 Conceding this point, the mother nevertheless argues that the father waived this issue by failing to raise the matter earlier and by mo......
  • Tucker v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 6, 1990
    ...182 Ga.App. 399, 403(4), 355 S.E.2d 719 (1987); Socolow v. Goodman, 184 Ga.App. 103(2), 360 S.E.2d 653 (1987); Graves v. Graves, 186 Ga.App. 140, 141(2), 366 S.E.2d 809 (1988). Judgment affirmed. Motions DEEN, P.J., and POPE, J., concur. ...
  • Get Started for Free