Court Opinion

ID: 9564232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:56:30.816555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:18.180104
License: Public Domain

Jordan, Justice,
concurring specially. I specially concur in the judgment solely upon the theory that the venue requirement of the Constitution cannot be waived. The result reached, however, clearly indicates to me the desirability for changing the constitutional provisions relating to venue in divorce and alimony cases. There should be a provision whereby either party to a marriage who brings an action for alimony and custody of a minor child in the county of the other party’s residence, such defendant would be allowed to counterclaim for a divorce and custody, as were the facts in the instant case. In this day of crowded court calendars, we simply cannot afford the luxury of allowing the same parties to have two separate trials being conducted at the same time in two different jurisdictions dealing with substantially the same subject matter. Such a constitutional amendment would be in line with the intent and purpose of the Civil Practice Act which provides, "the provisions of this title shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Code Ann. § 81A-101.
I am authorized to state that Justice Ingram concurs in what is said above.