CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Steven and Sharon Buhrle were granted an uncontested pro se divorce by a Georgia court on Dec. 10, 1992. The divorce decree incorporated a separation agreement that was executed by the couple on Nov. 2, 1992. When the couple divorced, both were in their early twenties, shared a young child and were by Sharon’s account unsophisticated. Neither party consulted an attorney. The separation agreement that was filed with the divorce decree was a fill-in-the-blank form that the parties obtained at a library. The agreement gave Steven permanent legal custody of the couple’s child, granted Sharon visitation rights, obligated Sharon to pay $36 a week in child support, required Steven to maintain health insurance for the child, allowed Steven to claim the child for tax purposes, waived each individual’s right to alimony, divided marital property and provided for the agreement’s modification. Sharon and Steven initially filled in the blanks for all of the aforementioned promises with the exception of the child support provision. They intentionally left that provision blank. The judge, before whom the couple appeared, would not allow them to leave the child support provision blank. Sharon suggested the figure that was entered because that was the amount of money she had left after paying bills. The agreement was executed and a final divorce decree was signed about a month later. After the divorce, there was a child support and visitation dispute between Sharon and Steven in Florida. The dispute was resolved as evidenced by an order denying Steven’s motion for contempt. That order directed Sharon to resume payment of child support in the amount of $36 a week plus an additional $14 dollars a week for arrearages. The record does not make any other mention of the Florida order and shows that Sharon made a few nominal child support payments through the Florida child support system. On Oct. 13, 2003, the Texas attorney general filed a notice of registration of foreign support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act and a motion to enforce the foreign child support order. Sharon was served with the notice and motion on Oct. 23, 2003. Sharon did not file a response to the court papers served on her. On March 3, 2004, an associate judge denied the attorney general’s motion to enforce the foreign child support order. The associate judge’s order was appealed to a district court and denied on April 1, 2004. The attorney general then filed a motion to reconsider and a motion for new trial, or in the alterative, a motion to modify, correct or reform the judgment. Both motions were denied and an appeal was timely perfected. HOLDING:Affirmed. In his first issue, the attorney general argued that because Sharon failed to timely contest the attorney general’s registration for enforcement of the Georgia divorce decree, she cannot later contend that the decree did not order her to pay child support. The court held that because the order was confirmed by operation of law, Sharon was precluded from contesting the order’s validity or enforcement. In his second issue, the attorney general argued that the trial court erred by not ordering Sharon to pay child support under the Georgia order. The court, however, found that the Georgia order did not comply with Georgia law, because it failed to specify which party is to pay the minor child’s support. Therefore, the order was void under Georgia law. Therefore, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enforce the registered support order. The attorney general further argued that a Florida court order implementing the void Georgia order should be given full faith and credit, but the court rejected this argument. OPINION:Valdez, C.J., Hinojosa and Rodriguez, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.