Plummer v. Plummer
305 Ga. 23
Ga.2019Background
- Parents were awarded joint legal custody in a Georgia final divorce decree (December 2013); Mother had primary physical custody and moved to Florida with the child during the divorce.
- Father (resident of Georgia) filed a contempt motion (granted April 2015) and then filed a custody modification petition in Georgia on May 21, 2015; Mother was served in June 2015.
- Father was relocated to Virginia by the U.S. Navy on July 1, 2016; a temporary order in the modification case issued July 8, 2016.
- Mother moved to dismiss the modification action for lack of jurisdiction under OCGA § 19-9-62(a)(2), arguing that when neither the child nor the parents resided in Georgia the court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.
- The trial court dismissed; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether jurisdiction is determined at filing or can be divested later when all parties leave the state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Plummer) | Defendant's Argument (Elia Plummer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Georgia court that had made a custody determination loses exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under OCGA § 19-9-62(a)(2) if, after a modification action is filed, neither the child nor the parents reside in Georgia | Jurisdiction attaches at commencement of the proceeding; once Father filed (May 21, 2015) jurisdiction vested and later relocation does not divest it | The statute’s plain text means exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ceases when no child or parent presently resides in Georgia, regardless of when the modification action was filed | Court held jurisdiction is determined at time of filing; Georgia court retained jurisdiction despite later relocations; trial court erred in dismissing |
Key Cases Cited
- Plummer v. Plummer, 342 Ga. App. 605, 804 S.E.2d 179 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017) (Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal below)
- Barker v. Barker, 294 Ga. 572, 757 S.E.2d 42 (Ga. 2014) (jurisdictional questions in domestic relations measured at time of filing)
- Franek v. Ray, 239 Ga. 282, 236 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 1977) (residence at time of filing controls venue and jurisdictional issues)
- Zuber v. Zuber, 215 Ga. 314, 110 S.E.2d 370 (Ga. 1959) (subject-matter jurisdiction depends on conditions at institution of suit)
- State ex rel. Z.Z. v. State, 310 P.3d 772 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (interpreting UCCJEA § 202: jurisdiction attaches at commencement of proceeding)
- Beam v. Beam, 266 P.3d 466 (Haw. Ct. App. 2011) (family court retained exclusive jurisdiction where modification proceeding had been commenced before parties moved out of state)