(Ga. L. 1965, p. 263, §§ 1-3; Ga. L. 1979, p. 466, §§ 29-31.)
Law reviews.- For survey article on domestic relations, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 113 (1982). For annual survey of law of domestic relations, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 179 (1986). For comment on Tobin v. Tobin, 93 Ga. App. 568, 92 S.E.2d 304 (1956), holding that it is no defense to an alimony judgment in a divisible divorce that one party obtained the divorce subsequent to the judgment, see 20 Ga. B.J. 118 (1957).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Statute is clearly remedial in the statute's purpose and is designed to remedy situations where a husband and father has obtained a divorce in another state, thus severing the marital relationship, which, under the former law, resulted in cutting off the right of the wife to apply for and have granted an enforceable judgment for alimony. Such a statute should be given an equitable and liberal construction to accomplish the statute's beneficent purposes. Spadea v. Spadea, 225 Ga. 80, 165 S.E.2d 836 (1969).
Section's intent is to indefeasibly vest right to claim alimony.
- It is definitely intent of statute to indefeasibly vest in wives (now either spouse) right to claim alimony and to cause this right to survive any scheme or trick of the husband in obtaining a divorce in another state to defeat her right to assert such claim against him in this state's courts, unhampered by any foreign divorce decree severing the relationship of wife and husband. Daniel v. Daniel, 222 Ga. 861, 152 S.E.2d 873 (1967).
Provision not applicable to division of marital assets.
- Trial court erred in finding that O.C.G.A. § 19-6-27 applied to a case where plaintiff former husband filed an action in Georgia seeking to domesticate a Texas divorce decree and to adjudicate the parties' property distribution and defendant wife counterclaimed for breach of contract and for an equitable division of property as the action before the court did not involve alimony or child support, but the equitable division of marital assets, which was not addressed by O.C.G.A. § 19-6-27. Barolia v. Pirani, 260 Ga. App. 513, 580 S.E.2d 297 (2003).
Applicability to resident spouse served with out-of-state petition.
- O.C.G.A. § 19-6-27 is of no avail to a Georgia resident spouse who is personally served with an out-of-state divorce petition. Hildebrant v. Hildebrant, 261 Ga. 603, 409 S.E.2d 206 (1991).
Statutory residency requirement of six months for divorce proceedings has not been extended to alimony proceedings. Chalfant v. Rains, 244 Ga. 747, 262 S.E.2d 63 (1979).
Alimony proceeding need not be ancillary to divorce to be valid. Chalfant v. Rains, 244 Ga. 747, 262 S.E.2d 63 (1979).
Cited in Ward v. Ward, 223 Ga. 868, 159 S.E.2d 81 (1968); Spadea v. Spadea, 225 Ga. 80, 165 S.E.2d 836 (1969); Reno v. Reno, 249 Ga. 855, 295 S.E.2d 94 (1982); Page v. Page, 255 Ga. 145, 335 S.E.2d 865 (1985); Heath v. Heath, 257 Ga. 777, 364 S.E.2d 272 (1988).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 24A Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation, §§ 1071 et seq., 1096 et seq.
C.J.S.- 27C C.J.S., Divorce, § 1280 et seq.
ALR.- Foreign divorce as affecting local order previously entered for separate maintenance, 28 A.L.R.2d 1346; 49 A.L.R.3d 1266.
Valid foreign divorce granted upon constructive service as precluding action by spouse for alimony, support, or maintenance, 28 A.L.R.2d 1378.
Right of nonresident wife to maintain action for separate maintenance or alimony alone against resident husband, 36 A.L.R.2d 1369.
Validity, construction, and application of full faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), 28 USCS § 1738B - state cases, 18 A.L.R.6th 97.