legislature intended that only child support, and not alimony,
can be divorce
enforced in a proceeding decree under Chapter 88.
arising out of a Section 88.0515,
added by Section 14 of
or judgments for the
payment of alimony or support ! I . . . entered by any court of this state may be enforced by another circuit court in this
state in the following manner: . . .
This provision addresses
statute was enacted in the "support" for the purposes
same legislation which redefines of URESA enforcement of foreign
difference between alimony and expressly limited the
and child support, and specifically enforcement of foreign decrees to
child support decrees. The Petitioner's brief statutory construction that
overlooks the basic rule of expression of one thing in a
statute implies exclusion of another.
PW Ventures, Inc.
Nichols, 533 inclusion in
v. of of
any other that this
definition Court held
The legislature was aware
So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1985), it intended to exclude
that it alimony
had to redefine l~support if from operation of the URESA
law. The 1992 exclude alimony
amendment redefined from operation of