Hasty v. Duncan
239 Ga. 797, 239 S.E.2d 7, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1335 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory procedure for modifying a child support award, which requires a showing of a change in financial status, does not apply to the termination of a child support obligation that occurs when the paying parent obtains legal and physical custody of the child.
Facts:
- A husband and wife divorced in August 1974.
- The final divorce decree awarded custody of their minor daughter to the wife.
- The court ordered the husband to pay child support to the wife.
- Upon reaching the age of 14, the daughter expressed her desire to live with her father.
Procedural Posture:
- The father (appellee) filed a petition in the Superior Court of DeKalb County for a change of custody and termination of his child support payments.
- The mother (appellant) filed an answer, not contesting the custody change but requesting an accounting of support arrears and attorney's fees.
- The mother filed a demand for a jury trial on the issue of reducing child support.
- The mother also filed a plea arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to join a child support action with a change of custody petition.
- The trial court granted the change of custody, terminated the father's future child support payments, and denied the mother's other demands.
- The mother (appellant) appealed the trial court's order terminating child support and denying her motions to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statutory procedure for modifying child support, which requires a showing of a change in financial status and allows for a jury trial, apply when a non-custodial parent's child support obligation is terminated as a result of that parent gaining custody of the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowles, Justice
No. The termination of a child support obligation contemporaneous with a change of custody is not a 'modification' or 'revision' subject to the procedural requirements of Code Ann. § 30-220. The court reasoned that the statutory framework for revising support is predicated on a change in the financial status of the parties, which is irrelevant when the basis for the change is the custodial parent's new duty to support the child directly. Citing precedent from Northcutt v. Northcutt, the court found it would be 'incongruous' to require the father to continue paying the mother for the child's support while he, as the new custodian, was already directly supporting the child. Therefore, the statute does not apply, and the mother was not entitled to a jury trial on the termination of support or to an award of attorney's fees under a related statute.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial distinction between the 'modification' of a child support award and its 'termination' due to a change in custody. By carving out termination-via-custody-change from the formal statutory modification process, the court streamlined the legal procedure for parents who gain custody. This precedent clarifies that a change of custody is a dispositive event that renders the former support order obsolete, obviating the need for a separate evidentiary hearing on the parents' financial statuses. It affects future cases by preventing the non-custodial parent from using modification procedures to delay or contest the logical financial consequence of a custody change.
