Jarrett v. Jarrett

14 Citing cases

  1. Allen v. Dept. of Human Resources

    264 Ga. 119 (Ga. 1994)   Cited 4 times
    Reversing an award and remanding to the trial court with instruction to amend its order to make it prospective only

    [Cit.]Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560, 561 (1) ( 385 S.E.2d 279) (1989). See also Hendrix v. Stone, 261 Ga. 874 (1) ( 412 S.E.2d 536) (1992).

  2. Moore v. Mckinney

    335 Ga. App. 855 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times

    The February 18, 2014 temporary consent order provided that Moore's obligations to pay child support “terminated retroactively to January 31, 2014.” It is well settled that a child support judgment is enforceable until modified, vacated, or set aside. Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560, 561(1), 385 S.E.2d 279 (1989). Although a permanent judgment of child support can be temporarily modified pending a final order in a modification action, OCGA § 19–6–19(c), a child support judgment cannot be modified retroactively.

  3. Wynn v. Craven

    301 Ga. 30 (Ga. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Any modification of a child support award may operate prospectively only. See Robertson v. Robertson, 266 Ga. 516, 518 (1), 467 S.E.2d 556 (1996) ; Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560, 561 (1), 385 S.E.2d 279 (1989). A forgiveness or reduction of child support arrears constitutes an improper retroactive modification.

  4. Odom v. Odom

    291 Ga. 811 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    See Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, 244 Ga. 313, 314, 260 S.E.2d 47 (1979) (action for modification not part of original divorce action); McGuire v. McGuire, 228 Ga. 782, 786, 187 S.E.2d 859 (1972) (purpose in creation of statutory right to modify decree as to permanent alimony was to “remedy the ‘evil’... so as to allow by statute the modification of final decrees in Georgia courts”). See also Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560(1), 385 S.E.2d 279 (1989) (permanent child support judgment is res judicata and enforceable until modified, vacated, or set aside). Accordingly, res judicata did not preclude the trial court from considering wife's petition to modify child support.

  5. Moon v. Moon

    277 Ga. 375 (Ga. 2003)   Cited 45 times
    Holding court has discretion to impose bond to assure return of children

    Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it set out the actual amount of child support to be paid by Mrs. Moon. The child support requirement does not preclude Mrs. Moon from seeking downward modification of her support obligation should she experience in the future a reduction in income that makes her child support payments fall outside the Guidelines. Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560 (2) ( 385 S.E.2d 279) (1989). See also OCGA § 19-6-19.

  6. Butler v. Turner

    274 Ga. 566 (Ga. 2001)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that mother could sue father for fraud based upon father's alleged misrepresentation of his finances in a child support action

    Foster v. Foster, supra at 814 (2). See also Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560, 561 (1) ( 385 S.E.2d 279) (1989) (recognizing that a child support judgment cannot be modified retroactively). Since the allegations in this suit are clearly such as would not render the judgment in the prior action void on its face, the effect of the instant action is to make a collateral attack on the judgment in the prior suit in violation of OCGA § 9-11-60 (a).Richardson v. Simmons, supra at 750.

  7. Robertson v. Robertson

    266 Ga. 516 (Ga. 1996)   Cited 9 times

    It is equally well-established that an order modifying child support may operate only prospectively. Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560(1) ( 385 S.E.2d 279) (1989). The purported compromise agreement was admitted, over appellant's objection, for the limited purpose of showing that appellee's contempt was not wilful. Pretermitting any issue concerning the validity of the agreement itself and whether the agreement was properly admitted for the stated purpose, it was error for the trial court to consider, in arriving at the amount of appellee's arrearage, evidence of the parties' intent to compromise appellee's support obligations under the final decree.

  8. Pearson v. Pearson

    265 Ga. 100 (Ga. 1995)   Cited 13 times
    Remanding modification of child support action for further consideration when trial court failed to provide a written finding of special circumstances to support the deviation from the child-support guidelines

    Self-executing and future modification provisions in the judgment of divorce undergo the necessary judicial scrutiny at the time of entry. See Weaver v. Jones, 260 Ga. 493 (396S.E.2d 890) (1990); Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560 ( 385 S.E.2d 279) (1989); Cabaniss v. Cabaniss, 251 Ga. 177 ( 304 S.E.2d 65) (1983); Pearce v. Pearce, 244 Ga. 69 ( 257 S.E.2d 904)(1979). In the case at bar, the trial court found the existence of an oral agreement and, without more, made it the order of modification of the court.

  9. Hendrix v. Stone

    261 Ga. 874 (Ga. 1992)   Cited 14 times
    In Hendrix v. Stone, 261 Ga. 874 (1) (412 S.E.2d 536) (1992), we held that a trial court may not retroactively modify an alimony obligation.

    We have, however, held that an order modifying a child support obligation can operate only prospectively. Jarrett v. Jarrett, 259 Ga. 560 (1) ( 385 S.E.2d 279) (1989); Skinner v. Skinner, 252 Ga. 512 (2) ( 314 S.E.2d 897) (1984); Butterworth v. Butterworth, 228 Ga. 277 (3) ( 185 S.E.2d 59) (1971). Clark, The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States, 2d ed., Vol. 2, § 17.6, p. 274.

  10. Perez v. Cunningham

    355 Ga. App. 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    (Punctuation omitted.) Jarrett v. Jarrett , 259 Ga. 560, 561 (1), 385 S.E.2d 279 (1989) ; see OCGA § 19-6-17 (e) (3) ("Any payment or installment of support under any child support order is, on and after the date due ... [n]ot subject to retroactive modification."). See Allen v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources , 264 Ga. 119, 120, 441 S.E.2d 754 (1994) (reversing an award because the trial court retroactively increased the child support obligation to the date of the modification action); see also Galvin v. Galvin , 288 Ga. 125, 126 (1), 702 S.E.2d 155 (2010) (holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to make a downward modification of child support retroactive to the date the father sought modification because "[t]he modification of a support obligation payable in installments pursuant to a judgment is effective no earlier than the date of the judgment of modification").