230 Ga. 246 (1973)

196 S.E.2d 397


Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided March 8, 1973.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Holcomb & McDuff, Robert E. McDuff, Frank D. Holcomb, for appellant.

Cotton, Katz & White, Edwin K. Palmer, for appellee.

NICHOLS, Justice.

1. Had the wife only sought to obtain custody of the child previously awarded to the husband because of changed circumstances after the original decree and child support for both children, then without question the action should have been filed in the county of the husband's residence. Compare Perry v. Perry, 212 Ga. 668 (95 S.E.2d 2); Pirkle v. Pirkle, 212 Ga. 752 (95 S.E.2d 663); Martin v. Hendon, 224 Ga. 221 (160 S.E.2d 893). However, the present appeal involves an attack upon the original decree as having been obtained by fraud, and custody is sought, not because of changed conditions, but because she had been denied custody by the fraudulently obtained decree.

2. Was venue of the complaint in the Superior Court of Cobb County? If so, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed and this is so whether or not the wife is entitled to any of the relief sought.

In Bugden v. Bugden, 224 Ga. 517 (162 S.E.2d 719), it was held that an action to modify a decree awarding alimony is a separate action and must be filed in the county of the defendant's residence under the mandate of the Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. XIV, Par. VI (Code Ann. § 2-4906) although the Act of 1955 (Ga. L. 1955, pp. 630, 631; Code Ann. § 30-220) provided otherwise. The suit in Bugden, supra, is a separate action recognizing and relying upon the original divorce action. The present action is an attack upon a part of the original decree and the court's jurisdiction is based upon the original decree having allegedly been obtained by fraud. Under such circumstances the superior court granting the decree attacked is the superior court of appropriate jurisdiction as set forth in the Act of 1966 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 662 as amended; Code Ann. § 81A-160). Compare Dixon, Mitchell & Co. v. Baxter & Co., 106 Ga. 180 (32 SE 24); Hood v. Hood, 143 Ga. 616 (85 SE 849), as to the proper method of attacking a judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter.

The judgment appealed from, which held that the trial court had jurisdiction for limited purposes, shows no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases