(Code 1981, §9-12-134, enacted by Ga. L. 1986, p. 380, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 228, § 3; Ga. L. 2004, p. 980, § 2; Ga. L. 2019, p. 693, § 36/HB 70.)
The 2019 amendment, effective January 1, 2020, added subsection (c).
Editor's notes.- Ga. L. 2000, p. 228, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "The Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Civil Litigation Improvement Act of 2000.'"
Ga. L. 2004, p. 980, § 4, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment by that Act shall apply to cases pending on or filed on or after May 17, 2004.
Law reviews.- For note on 2000 amendment of this Code section, see 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 37 (2000).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Enforcement of support order.
- After the defendant failed to investigate paternity despite his suspicion that he was not the father of all his wife's children, and since his failure to investigate was not caused by any alleged misrepresentation by his former spouse, he failed to show either actionable fraud or that his lack of investigation was unmixed with his own "negligence or fault," and the trial court erred in staying enforcement of an out-of-state support order. Department of Human Resources v. Fenner, 235 Ga. App. 233, 510 S.E.2d 534 (1998).
Motion for stay.
- Trial court properly found that an action to enforce a Florida judgment entered against a judgment debtor was time-barred under Georgia law, granting the judgment debtor's motion to stay enforcement of that judgment as the statute of limitations on enforcement of the Florida judgment had run under the law of Georgia, the receiving state, when viewed from the date of rendition of the judgment in the State of Florida, the state in which the judgment originated; moreover, to run the Georgia time limitation from the date of the filing of the judgment rather than from the date of rendition of the judgment would be contrary to the language of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et seq., and of Georgia's dormancy-of-judgment and judgment-renewal statutes, O.C.G.A. §§ 9-12-60 and9-12-61. Corzo Trucking Corp. v. West, 281 Ga. App. 361, 636 S.E.2d 39 (2006).
Grant of stay of filed foreign judgment erroneous.
- Grant of a stay of a filed foreign judgment was erroneous because, under subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 9-12-134, a judgment rendered by a court in Georgia is not subject to the limitation period imposed on foreign judgments by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20; rather, judgments filed under the Uniform Law are subject to a stay of execution if the judgments are dormant under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-60(a). Aetna Ins. Co. v. Williams, 237 Ga. App. 881, 517 S.E.2d 109 (1999).
Stay of enforcement of foreign judgment proper.
- Trial court properly stayed enforcement of an original South Carolina judgment under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-134 because an appeal was pending, and once the South Carolina appellate court issued a remittitur and the lower court entered a revised judgment, the appellee properly filed the revised South Carolina judgment and moved to lift the stay, and once the revised South Carolina judgment was filed, the judgment, like the original, had the same effect as a Georgia judgment under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-132. The revised judgment had the same effect a Georgia judgment would have if the judgment had been revised in accordance with a remittitur received from a Georgia appellate court, and the stay was, therefore, properly lifted to allow enforcement of that revised judgment. Noaha, LLC v. Vista Antiques & Persian Rugs, Inc., 306 Ga. App. 323, 702 S.E.2d 660 (2010).