Court Opinion

ID: 9569875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:18:13.063996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:11.948626
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
concurring.
I can concur fully with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court’s order in the instant case violates the bar on the retroactive modification of support set forth in Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560 (1) (385 SE2d 279) (1989) because my review of the record shows that there was no abuse of the legal process by Mr. Allen.1 write specially *121to note that it would not be appropriate to apply the bar in Jarrett to shield a party where the evidence supports the conclusion that the party deliberately and needlessly prolonged the litigation in order to avoid payment of support obligations accruing during the delay.
Decided April 18, 1994.
Chilivis & Grindler, Nickolas P. Chilivis, John D. Dalbey, Michael Devine, for appellant.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, William C. Joy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Cynthia H. Frank, Assistant Attorney General, Imogene L. Walker, Randy J. Comins, for appellee.

 Although DHR’s complaint was filed in July 1991, the reason for final judgment not being entered until September 1993, nunc pro tunc August 23, 1993, is primarily explained by this Court’s grant of Mr. Allen’s application for discretionary appeal and the rendering of *121our opinion in Allen v. Dept. of Human Resources, 262 Ga. 521 (423 SE2d 383) (1992) in November 1992.