Lawrence v. Day, 37217
| Decision Date | 15 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 37217,37217 |
| Citation | 277 S.E.2d 35,247 Ga. 474 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE v. DAY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Marshall H. Jaffe, Robert A. Sneed & Associates, P. C., Decatur, for Cecil Lawrence.
James Kramer, Lawrenceville, for Nancy Lawrence Day.
This is a petition for modification of child custody filed by the appellant former husband against the appellee former wife. Code Ann. §§ 30-127(b), 74-107(b) (). The trial judge refused to award full custody to the appellant, but the judge did agree to a modification of visitation rights. The judge also entered a sua sponte order providing for an upward revision of the child support for which the appellant is liable. Code Ann. § 30-220(a) et seq. (Ga.L.1979, pp. 466, 482 et seq.). The appellant appeals from the trial judge's revision of the child support award. We reverse.
Code Ann. §§ 30-127(b) and 74-107(b) do provide, in pertinent part, that: "In any case in which a judgment has been entered awarding the custody of a minor, on the motion of any party or on the motion of the court that portion of the judgment affecting visitation rights between the parties and their minor children may be subject to review and modification or alteration, but not more often than once in each two-year period following the date of the entry of such judgment, without the necessity of any showing of a change in any material conditions and circumstances of either party or the minor." (Emphasis supplied.) However, Code Ann. § 30-220(a) provides, in pertinent part, that: "The judgment of a court providing permanent alimony for the support of a child or children shall be subject to revision upon petition filed by either former spouse showing a change in the income and financial status of the former spouse liable for such alimony." (Emphasis supplied.) Held :
In this case, it is unnecessary to decide whether the custodial parent can even file a petition for revision of child support in response to a petition for modification of child custody. Here, no such petition was filed, no such relief was requested, and there was no evidence adduced at the hearing below to support a finding of change in the income and financial status of the appellant. Therefore, the trial judge erred in revising the child support award.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Sanders
...amended the parties' pleadings and authorized the trial court's verdict with regard to child-support payments) with Lawrence v. Day, 247 Ga. 474, 474–75, 277 S.E.2d 35 (1981) (holding, in a modification-of-custody case, that a trial court erred in imposing an upward revision of child suppor......
-
Grailer v. Jones
...support and custody; the father indicated only that he sought to maintain the current custodial arrangement.19 See Lawrence v. Day , 247 Ga. 474, 475, 277 S.E.2d 35 (1981) (reversing a sua sponte upward revision of child support in a custody modification proceeding because no petition for m......
-
Dupree v. State, 37199
...... At no time during the day did the appellant ask to use the telephone, or to speak with an attorney, or to leave. However, ......
-
Smith v. Smith, 70025
...] and authorized the verdict rendered. [Cits.]" Jackson v. Jackson, 243 Ga. 338, 253 S.E.2d 758 (1979). Compare Lawrence v. Day, 247 Ga. 474, 475, 277 S.E.2d 35 (1981), wherein the evidence adduced at the hearing did not support the judgment of Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part......