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
The relevant facts
Baker, 652 So.
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
the Uniform collect $1.9
million dollars in allegedly
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,
question as a
652 So. 2d at 418. the petition, but
( 1 9 9 3 ), holding
abrogated the Supreme Court’s
Q u i g l e y , 463 S o .
jurisdiction of URESA unless accompanied by child support?
and the are
Id. at 4, 652 So. 2d at 419.