X hits on this document

40 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

4 / 16

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS Respondent, Frank S. Nicoll, Jr., objects to the Statement of the Case and of the Facts in the PetitiOnerIs initial brief, but only as to the fact that it contains

irrelevant matter.

The relevant facts

District

Court’s opinion.

See

Nicol1

v.

are contained

Baker, 652 So.

in

the

2d

417

(Fla.

1965.

2d DCA 1995). (Opinionat 2,

The Nicolls 652 So. 2d

were divorced in Maryland in at 418). In 1994, the former

wife attempted to register a Reciprocal Enforcement of Support

decree

under

Act

(URESA) to

the Uniform collect $1.9

million dollars in allegedly

District

Court,

the

former

unpaid alimony.

husband

sought

Id.

In

the

a

writ

of

prohibition to prohibit the Circuit subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at He argued that the new definition of

Court from exercising 1-2, 652 So. 2d at 418. “support11in Florida’s

version of URESA support, and that

limited jurisdiction under it provided no jurisdiction

URESA to child for enforcement

of alimony orders alone.

Id. at 2,

District

Court agreed

and granted

certified

the following

question as a

importance:

652 So. 2d at 418. the petition, but

The it

question

of

great

public

Whether Section

the

legislature,

by

88.031(20),

Florida

enacting Statutes

( 1 9 9 3 ), holding

has in

abrogated the Supreme Court’s

State

ex

rel.

Quigley

v.

Q u i g l e y , 463 S o .

2d 224

(Fla. 19851,

removed

alimony

orders

from

jurisdiction of URESA unless accompanied by child support?

they

and the are

Id. at 4, 652 So. 2d at 419.

Document info
Document views40
Page views40
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 12:03:49 UTC 2016
Pages16
Paragraphs691
Words2885

Comments