X hits on this document

42 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

13 / 16

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,

foreign Florida

Statutes

(19931,

which is

the Section

added by Section 14 of

Chapter

92-138,

provides

that orders

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: . . .

Is

This provision addresses

only

judgments

entered by

circuit

courts

of

this

state.

The

statute was enacted in the "support" for the purposes

same legislation which redefines of URESA enforcement of foreign

support

decrees.

The

legislature

was

well

aware

of

the

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

So.

the

2d

281

definition

(Fla.

1988).

The

of

support

implies

language exclusion

v. of of

any other that this

definition Court held

of in

the term.

The legislature was aware

State

ex

rel.

Quigley

v.

Quigley,

463

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

the the

term llsUpportlto

URESA

law.

The

10

Document info
Document views42
Page views42
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 15:44:49 UTC 2016
Pages16
Paragraphs691
Words2885

Comments