SUMMARY OF ARGTJMENT In S t a t e ex rel. Quigley v. Quigley, 463 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 19851, this Court held that the 1979 amendment to the URESA law did not sufficiently express the legislature's intent to exclude pure alimony claims from URESA enforcement. The decision suggested that the legislature needed to define the term llsupportltlo exclude alimony in order to achieve that end. The legislature responded in 1992 with an amendment to the URESA law. That amendment specifically defined llsupport'R in a manner which exludes alimony. The 1992 amendment is clearly a response to the Quigley result, and it indicates t h a t the URESA law applies only to child support matters. The District Court properly recognized the legislative expression of intent and held that the Circuit Court exceeded i t s subject matter jurisdiction by applying the URESA provisions to a pure alimony matter. The certified question should be answered affirmatively in order to effectuate the clear intent of the legislature.