X hits on this document

38 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

12 / 16

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

Frazier

v.

FKaZier,

the

result

would

have

been

different.

Similarly, the result in

State ex reL. Quigley v . Q u i g l e y , would have been different under

463

So. 2d 224, (Fla. 1 9 8 5 ) ,

the

1992 definition of the addressed the obvious

term. fact that

The the

Petitioner has 1992 amendment

never is a

legislative response to the Quigley decision. was indicated that if the legislature had meant

In

Q u i g l e y , it

to

distinguish

between term.

child The

support and alimony,

it would have redefined the

statement

of

legislative

intent

in

a

prior

amendment had not been sufficient to alimony support provisions previously

repeal implicitly the available under URESA.

However,

the

new

subsection

to

Section

88.031

expressly

defines "support" for cannot be interpreted

the purposes of URESA to include alimony.

in

terms

which

The Petitioner points out that the 1992 amendment also

addressed alimony in Section 14.

Florida.

That undeniable f a c t

wife's

position.

In

fact,

it

Chapter 92-138, §14, Laws of does not support the former strongly indicates t h a t the

9

Document info
Document views38
Page views38
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 19:08:26 UTC 2016
Pages16
Paragraphs691
Words2885

Comments