the instant case exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction by purporting to apply the URESA law to pure alimony matters.
The former husband has not disputed the similarity of the facts in this case and i n F r a z i e r v. F r a z i e r , 616 S o . 2d 575
(Fla. 2d DCA 1993). applicability of the
The issue in this case, however, is the 1992 amendment to the Uniform Reciprocal
Enforcement of Support Act. If the definition of the 1992 amendment had been applicable to the
llsupportin situation in
Similarly, the result in
State ex reL. Quigley v . Q u i g l e y , would have been different under
So. 2d 224, (Fla. 1 9 8 5 ) ,
1992 definition of the addressed the obvious
term. fact that
Petitioner has 1992 amendment
never is a
legislative response to the Quigley decision. was indicated that if the legislature had meant
Q u i g l e y , it
support and alimony,
it would have redefined the
amendment had not been sufficient to alimony support provisions previously
repeal implicitly the available under URESA.
defines "support" for cannot be interpreted
the purposes of URESA to include alimony.
The Petitioner points out that the 1992 amendment also
addressed alimony in Section 14.
That undeniable f a c t
Chapter 92-138, §14, Laws of does not support the former strongly indicates t h a t the