What Starts in Georgia Stays in Georgia

Often its necessary to take a ex-souse back to court to modify or enforce a divorce decree.  This can be particularly problematic when an ex-souse moves out of state.  Since filing a modification requires filing a new case, traditionally the person left here in Georgia had the burden of going  to court in the state where the spouse moved to.  Knowing this, many ex-spouses moved out of state to flee an unfriendly Court or avoid obligations.

On January 24, 2014 the Supreme Court of Georgia held that O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(6) gives the Superior Courts of the State of Georgia have personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant to modify and enforce a divorce decree originally granted in this state. In Barker v. Barker,  the Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Gwinnett Superior Court to dismiss a petition for contempt and modification of a Richmond County divorce decree.

David and Yvonne Barker were divorced in 2005 pursuant to a Final Judgment and Decree by the Superior Court of Richmond County in the State of Georgia.  In 2012 David filed a Petition for Contempt and Modification of the decree in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, however Yvonne moved from the State of Georgia several years before.  The Gwinnett County Superior Court held that since Yvonne was no longer a residence she was not subject to the personal jurisdiction of the courts in Georgia.  The Supreme Court disagreed in an opinion that clearly establishes the precedent for Georgia Courts to exercise continuing jurisdiction over divorce decrees granted in this state.

In 2010, the Georgia General Assembly the Domestic Relations Long Arm Statute provides that a Georgia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident a court in this state has already entered an order of alimony, child custody, child support, equitable apportionment of debt, or equitable division of property if the action involves modification of such order and the moving party resides in this state or if the action involves enforcement of that order, even if the that person no longer lives in Georgia.

Yvonne Barker argued that the Long Arm Statute is unconstitutional because she no longer lives in Georgia and has no connections to the state anymore.  In order for a court to constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident, there must be “minimum contacts” between the defendant and the state and the exercise of jurisdiction must satisfy general concepts of “fair play and substantial justice.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia, written by Justice Keith Blackwell, points out that many states have adopted a continuing jurisdiction doctrine, especially when it comes to cases involving child custody, child support, alimony and property division. The concept of continuing jurisdiction was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in 1913 inMichigan Trust Co. v. Ferry.

In its analysis of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court did not look at the modification and contempt action filed by David Barker as new and district case but an extension of the divorce case and decree that is the foundation of the action in court.  Justice Blackwell used a quote from a West Virginia Appellate Court,

With the matter of support and custody being placed in issue in the original proceeding, it cannot be said that the future welfare of children and matters relating to their support and custody requirements do not arise out of the original action. They are, indeed, an integral part of the original case. A party cannot place these matters in issue before a court, being himself subject to its jurisdiction and decretal orders, and later avoid the court's continuing jurisdiction to modify such orders as changing circumstances may require by the simple expedient of moving outside the court's geographical jurisdiction. Were the rule otherwise then litigants would become scofflaws.
First, the Georgia Supreme Court held that despite the fact the defendant has left the State of Georgia, she enjoyed the benefits of support and child custody arising out of the Georgia divorce decree, satisfying the requirement of “minimum contacts” with this state. Second, the Court held that the non-resident’s has access to the courts of this state to enforce the order the convenience of remaining resident to enforce and modify the decree out weigh the inconvenience to the non resident ex-souse.   This coupled with the state’s interest in protecting resident spouses and children satisfies the high Court’s notion of fair play and substantial justice.

The Georgia Supreme Court set out a clear Doctrine of Continuing jurisdiction in Georgia for the enforcement and modification of its divorce decrees against non-resident former spouse.  No longer can an ex-spouse leave the state to forum shop or escape the Court’s authority.