Dayna Kuriatnyk (Wife) and Richard Michael Kuriatnyk (Husband) were married in 2007 and lived in Florida. After their only child was born in April 2008, Wife and the child moved to Georgia. Wife brought this divorce action in Georgia on December 11, 2008. Husband was served with the verified complaint in Florida, but did not file any motion or answer.
The trial court entered a final divorce decree, “upon evidence submitted as provided by law,” awarding to Wife sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child, as well as child support in the amount of $750 per month. Husband filed a motion to set aside or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The trial court entered an order noting the absence of any supporting affidavits, depositions, or verified pleadings, and stating that “the Motion to Set Aside is DENIED and the Motion for New Trial is DENIED.” Husband applied for discretionary review, which we granted pursuant to our Pilot Project in divorce cases.
All of Husband’s enumerations on appeal were initially raised in the post-judgment motion. The extent to which the post-judgment motion was for a new trial or to set aside depends upon whether the issues raised related to a motion to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60
*590
(d), as “substance, rather than nomenclature, governs pleadings, [cits.].”
Martin v. Williams,
1. In the first enumeration, Husband contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the res of the marriage, as Wife had not been a bona fide resident of Georgia for six consecutive months before filing her complaint. In another enumeration, he urges that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq., because the child’s home state was Florida, as he had not lived in Georgia with Mother for at least six consecutive months prior to commencement of this action.
Both of these enumerations raise the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter. See
Devito v. Devito,
As the party seeking a divorce, Wife “had to show ‘that the trial court has jurisdiction over the res of the marriage which results from his or her domicile in this state for the six-month period preceding the filing of the action.’ [Cits.]”
Midkiff v. Midkiff,
Wife’s verified complaint showed that she “has been a resident of the State of Georgia for six months prior to the date of filing this Complaint” and that “[t]he State of Georgia is the home state of the child . . . .” See OCGA § 19-5-5 (b) (2);
Tanis v. Tanis,
supra at 719 (2);
Goulart v. Goulart,
Accordingly, Husband “has not demonstrated that the judgment was void on the present record. [Cits.]” Tanis v. Tanis, supra at 720 (2). That portion of the trial court’s order which denied the motion to set aside must therefore be affirmed.
2. In two other enumerations, Husband contends that the trial court erred when it failed to attach the child support worksheet to the final judgment, and when it incorrectly stated the presumptive amount of child support and awarded that erroneous amount without identifying and explaining any deviation.
“ ‘ “A motion for a new trial is a proper means of seeking a retrial or reexamination, in the same court, of an issue of fact, or of some part or portion thereof, after decision by a jury or a decision by the court thereon.” (Cit.)’ [Cit.]”
Underwood v. Underwood,
The trial court denied the motion for new trial on the day after it was filed. Husband’s last enumeration is that the trial court erred in ruling on the motion for new trial without an oral hearing. *592 Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.3 provides that, “in civil actions,”
“(u)nless otherwise ordered by the court,” a motion for new trial “shall be decided” after an “oral hearing.” Here, the trial court did not issue an order excepting the motion filed by [Husband] from this procedural requirement. Instead, it summarily denied the motion without holding the mandatory hearing. The appellate courts of Georgia have “consistently refused to find that the failure to hold oral argument is harmless error. To hold otherwise ‘would not encourage adherence to the Uniform Rules and would render the mandated hearing a hollow right.’ (Cits.)” [Cit.]
Green v. McCart,
Accordingly, that portion of the trial court’s order which denied the motion for new trial must be reversed, and the case remanded with direction that the trial court conduct a hearing as required by law and that it thereafter enter a new order disposing of the motion for new trial. Green v. McCart, supra; Heston v. Lilly, supra. We do not reach Husband’s enumerations addressing the merits of the trial court’s ruling on the motion for new trial, as the issues raised thereby must be asserted in the trial court on remand. Green v. McCart, supra at 863 (2); Heston v. Lilly, supra at 902-903 (2).
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and case remanded with direction.