O'Hara v. Floyd
| Decision Date | 15 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 124 |
| Citation | 47 Ala.App. 619,259 So.2d 673 |
| Parties | Henry Jones O'HARA, Jr. v. Barbara FLOYD. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Parker, Wilkinson & Gwin, Birmingham, for appellant.
Earl C. Morgan, Dist. Atty., Tenth Judicial Circuit, of Ala., Birmingham, for appellee.
This action was initiated in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the provisions of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.
Upon the filing of a verified petition by petitioner, Barbara Floyd, the California court made a finding that defendant, Henry Jones O'Hara, Jr. owed a duty to support the two children named in the petition. The petition and finding were certified to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, where it was docketed, hearing set and order entered directing service of the petition and order upon the defendant. Such action was taken in Alabama under the provisions of the Alabama Reciprocal Support Act, Title 34, Sections 105--122, Code of Alabama 1940, as amended. The Alabama act is in most respects similar to the California act.
Upon service of the petition and notice of hearing, defendant appeared and filed an answer. By his answer, defendant admitted some of the allegations of the petition and entered a general denial of the others. There was no affirmative defense entered, but no exception was taken to the form of the answer.
Upon the hearing, the district attorney representing the petitioner, submitted on the verified petition and the defendant upon his answer. There was discussion between the court and counsel as to the absence of precedent in this State concerning the sufficiency of the verified petition to support a decree against the defendant.
Upon submission to the court of the verified petition, defendant moved to exclude and asked that a judgment be entered in favor of defendant for failue of proof. The court overruled the motion to exclude and entered a decree of support against defendant.
The issue presented is whether a verified complaint which has been denied by answer is sufficient, without proof, to support a judgment or decree for support under the Alabama Reciprocal Support Act. This issue has not been heretofore presented to the appellate courts of Alabama.
In 1951, Alabama adopted substantially the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act. It was enacted to improve and extend the enforcement of duties of support and to make uniform the laws of the adopting states with respect thereto. Title 34, Section 105, Code of Alabama 1940, as amended. The civil proceedings authorized by the act are designed to provide a simplified, fair and convenient way to cause those who are obligated to support their minor children to do so without having to be extradited to another state. The act is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed to achieve its object. 42 A.L.R.2d 761.
The act provides that a petition shall be filed in the initiating state. The petition shall be verified and contain certain specific information. If the court of the initiating state finds that the petition contains facts from which it may be determined that the defendant owes a duty of support and that the responding state may obtain jurisdiction of the defendant or his property, it shall so certify and cause copies of the petition, its certificate, and the act to be transmitted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders v. Saunders
...of the initiating state that the allegations of the petition warrant further proceedings in the responding state); O'Hara v. Floyd, 47 Ala.App. 619, 259 So.2d 673 (1972) (the initiating state only examines the verified petition to determine if from allegation contained therein the duty of s......
-
State of Minn., Clay County, on Behalf of Licha v. Doty
...v. Kline, 260 Ark. 550, 542 S.W.2d 499, 500 (1976); Harris v. Kinard, 443 A.2d 25, 26-27 (D.C.App.1982). But see O'Hara v. Floyd, 47 Ala.App. 619, 259 So.2d 673, 675 (1972); Neff v. Johnson, 391 S.W.2d 760, 764 In the instant case, the initiating court certified the child's support needs to......
-
Huffman v. Huffman
...duty to support has primarily been addressed by the courts from the perspective of the respondent. See, e. g. O'Hara v. Floyd, 47 Ala.App. 619, 259 So.2d 673 (1972); Neff v. Johnson, 391 S.W.2d 760 (Ct. of Civ.App. of Texas, 1965); Mahan v. Read, 240 N.C. 641, 83 S.E.2d 706 (1954); Rosenber......
-
Scott v. Superior Court
...v. Bing (1965) 206 A.2d 606, 86 N.J.Super. 246; Gemmiti v. Beagle (1978) 405 N.Y.S.2d 225, 227-228, 94 Misc.2d 588; O'Hara v. Floyd (1972) 259 So.2d 673, 47 Ala.App. 619; cf. Uniform Laws Annotated (master Edition, 1979) Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, §§ 4 and It has been ju......