X hits on this document

43 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

7 / 16

ARGUMENT

THE 1992 AMENDMENT TO THE URESA LAW WAS CLEARLY INTENDED TO REMOVE ALIMONY ORDERS FROM THE JURISDICTION OF URESA UNLESS THEY ARE ACCOMPANIED BY CHILD SUPPORT.

This case presents the next logical step in the development of the law regarding the application of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, found at

Chapter 88, Florida Statutes

(1993). Chapter 8 8 is Florida's

version

of

the

URESA.

Section

88.011,

Florida

Statutes

(1993).

does not

The Second District Court held that the URESA law confer subject matter jurisdiction on Florida's

circuit courts jurisdictions.

to The

enforce alimony decrees subject matter jurisdiction

of foreign conferred by

the the

statutes relates solely to child support. holding is a 1992 amendment to Chapter 8 8 ,

The basis for which defines

§ the term "supporttf o r the 13, Laws of Florida.

purposes of Prior to

URESA.

See Ch. 92-138,

the

addition

of

this

definition to the statute, the Second District Court had disagreed with the Fifth District Court of Appeal regarding whether URESA applied to alimony.

In H e l m i c k v . H e l m i c k ,

436 So. 2d 1122

(Fla. 5th DCA

1983)

I

the

trial

former husband

to

the provisions

of

court had entered an order requiring the provide jlsupportlto his former wife under

URESA

under

a

Maryland

divorce

decree.

On

appeal, support

the

and

husband argued that URESA applies only to

not

to

alimony.

The

Fifth

District

Court

child noted

4

Document info
Document views43
Page views43
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 20:22:29 UTC 2016
Pages16
Paragraphs691
Words2885

Comments