CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1113527
...Section
61.13(1)(a) provides in pertinent part: "The court initially entering an order requiring one or both parents to make child support payments shall have continuing jurisdiction after the entry of the initial order to modify the amount and terms and conditions of the child support payments." See also §
88.2051, Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2851566
...tructure and intent. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B; §§
88.0011-.9051, Fla. Stat. (2007). Both the FFCCSOA and the UIFSA grant "continuing, exclusive jurisdiction" concerning a child support order to the state issuing the order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(d); §
88.2051(1), Fla....
...the state or when all of the parties file written consents with the issuing court to allow another state to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order, despite the parties' state of residence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(e)(2)(A) & (B); [2] § 88.2051, Fla....
...estant; or (B) each individual contestant has filed written consent with the State of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction for a court of another State to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order. [3] Specifically, section 88.2051(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: 88.2051....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11276, 2010 WL 3023361
...Despite the obvious logic of allowing the two former spouses now living in Tennessee to resolve their dispute there, [3] we must reverse. Under UIFSA, the Miami-Dade court has "continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order throughout the existence of the support obligation." § 88.2051(6) (emphasis added)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 741170
...See § 88.021, Fla. Stat. (1997). The motion for determination of controlling child support order alleges that the mother and children reside in Michigan. The documents of record corroborate this allegation. The father currently resides in Marion County, Florida. Section 88.2051, Florida Statutes, part of the UIFSA, provides in relevant part: (1) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order: (a) As long...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 282320
...in determining which order to recognize for purposes of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction: (a) If only one of the tribunals would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this act, the order of that tribunal controls and must be so recognized. Section 88.2051 of Florida's UIFSA defines continuing exclusive jurisdiction as: (1) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order: (a) As long...
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2623956
...That statute reads as follows: A tribunal of this state which lacks continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order may not serve as a responding tribunal to modify a spousal support order of another state. "Continuing exclusive jurisdiction," a defined term under UIFSA, is described in section 88.2051, Florida Statutes (2003)....
...Our analysis necessarily begins with the recognition that the Former Husband sought relief from his marital support obligations in the courts of Florida when he registered the Massachusetts divorce judgment in Florida pursuant to UIFSA. Having done so, he is bound by the terms of that legislation. Sections
88.2051,
88.2061(3) and
88.6031, Florida Statutes (2003), three of the provisions of UIFSA implicated by the dispute between the parties in this appeal, lend considerable weight to the Former Wife's position....
...ion" over a "child support" order as long as the state remains the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, or until appropriate consents of the affected individuals are filed. See § 88.2051(1)(a) and (b), Fla. Stat. (2003). Provisions governing the procedures to be followed in the modification of child support orders are found in section 88.2051(2), (3) and (4)....
...Under subsection (6) of that statute, however, a court of this state may not modify a "spousal support order" issued by a tribunal of another state having "continuing exclusive jurisdiction" over that order throughout the existence of the support obligation. See § 88.2051(6), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31828648
...ort order throughout the existence of the support obligation. A tribunal of this state may not modify a spousal support order issued by a tribunal of another state having continuing exclusive jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state. § 88.2051(6), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 1842603
...Florida and Massachusetts are signatories to the UIFSA, and thus the Former Husband is bound by its terms. Because Massachusetts is no longer the residence of the obligor, obligee, or the child, [5] and the court has modified the registered foreign support order, this state has assumed continuing exclusive jurisdiction. See § 88.2051(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1751752
...We hold that neither order disturbed the jurisdiction of the Miami-Dade court to enforce the arrearages and attorney fees in this case and, therefore, reverse the trial court's dismissal. DISCUSSION Our resolution of this case requires us to construe section 88.2051 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), §§ 88.XXXX-XXXX, Fla....
...Stat. (2000). UIFSA has been adopted by every state in the United States. [1] Under UIFSA as adopted in Florida, the effect of a purported modification of a child support order issued by a court located in a foreign country is governed by sections 88.2051(2) and (3) of the Florida Statutes....
...s act, a tribunal of this state loses continuing exclusive jurisdiction with regard to prospective enforcement of the order issued in this state, and may only: (a) Enforce the order that was modified as to amounts accruing before the modification[.] § 88.2051(2)-(3)(a), Fla....
...5th DCA 2006) ("[a]ny doubt about subject matter jurisdiction is resolved against the moving party"); and, (2) even if it was, UIFSA allows the issuing court, Florida, to enforce its child support order "as to amounts accruing before the modification." See § 88.2051(3), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7963, 2003 WL 21180332
...We hold this was in error. Since none of the parties (Houston, D.H., Maglio) currently reside in Michigan, Michigan lacks “continuing exclusive jurisdiction” over its previously entered child support order. § 552.1224(l)(a), Mich. Stat. (2002); §
88.2051(4), Fla. Stat. (2002). 1 Since Michigan lacks “continuing exclusive jurisdiction,” Florida, the obligor’s home state, has jurisdiction to enter a child support order, and Florida’s order, once entered, will be deemed the controlling order. §§
88.2051(l)(a) 88.2071(2)(c), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760, 2006 WL 1328952
...Spalding,
886 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Brenda disagrees with the dismissal, contending that this was not an action brought under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Chapter 88, Florida Statutes (2004), the statute applied in Spalding. See §
88.2051(6), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...order is effective at any given time.” Id. (quoting Hamilton v. Hamilton, 914 N.E.2d 747,
751 (Ind. 2009)).
To accomplish this goal, both the FFCCSOA and Florida’s UIFSA rely on the
concept of “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(d) (2012); §
88.2051, Fla. Stat. (2013); Trissler, 987 So. 2d at 210. A state that issues an initial child
support order has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order. 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(d);
§ 88.2051(1), Fla....
...state or when all of the parties file written consents with the issuing court to allow another
state to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order, despite the parties’ state
of residence.” Trissler, 987 So. 2d at 210 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(e)(2)(A), (B); §
88.2051, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...es of the UIFSA were not met. Second,
and more importantly, the trial court has no authority to transfer the case out of the
State of Florida pursuant to the rules of civil procedure and the family law rules
governing transfers of actions.
Section
88.2051 of the UIFSA controls the outcome of this issue. Section
88.2051(1)(a) mandates that a tribunal that has issued a child support order retains
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its order where that state remains the
residence of either the obligor or the obligee, or remains the residence of the child
for whose benefit the support order was issued or, pursuant to section
88.2051(2)(a), until all of the parties who are individuals have filed written
consents with the Florida tribunal for a tribunal of another state to modify the order
and assume continuing exclusive jurisdiction.1 See §
61.13(1)(a)(2), Fla....
...The record shows that the Mother and children now reside in
to amounts accruing before the modification, or enforce non-modifiable aspects of
that order, and provide other appropriate relief for violations of that order which
occurred before the effective date of the modification. § 88.2051(3), Fla....
...ding the transfer of jurisdiction
indicate the parties have not consented on the record that the Pennsylvania court,
which has jurisdiction over the Mother, may modify the Florida child support order
and assume continuing jurisdiction pursuant to section 88.2051(2)(a), Florida
Statutes (2017).3 See also Sootin v....
