Court Opinion

ID: 9850380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:56:17.448737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:36.028772
License: Public Domain

On Motion! for Rehearing.
Frankum, Justice.
Appellant contends that this court in rendering its decision overlooked the provisions of § 2 of the 1965 Act (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 263, 264; 'Code Ann. § 30-227) which reads as follows: “The procedure herein provided for shall not be available for the support of any child or children whose custody and support was legally adjudicated in the foreign court, unless custody of such child or children shall subsequently be awarded to the wife by a court having jurisdiction of the parties.” We did not overlook this provision of the law which is an integral part of the Act upon which our ruling was chiefly based. It is true that the decree which the defendant obtained *85in Florida contained a provision awarding $25.25 per week for the support of the minor children of the parties whose custody was in the plaintiff in Georgia at the time. However, the record shows, and no contention is made to the contrary, that the plaintiff was not personally served with process in the Florida proceeding; that she merely received a copy of the complaint in the mail; and that she made no appearance and filed no defensive pleadings in that case. The Florida court, therefore, never acquired jurisdiction over her person so as to bind her with its decree respecting support. Estin v. Estin, 334 U. S. 541 (68 SC 1213, 92 LE 1561); Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U. S. 416 (77 SC 1360, 1 LE2d 1456). See also 27B CJS 866, Divorce, § 374. It follows that the section of the Act relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of this case.

Rehearing denied.

All the Justices concur.