that the URESA provisions had been applied to alimony in the
The former husband asserted that a 1979 amendment
the statute indicated a referred specifically to
contrary legislative Section 88.012, which
establishment and enforcement of orders
of support for
proven Enforcement of S u p p o r t s u f f i c i e n t l y
efficient to cope with the increasing incidence of establishing and collecting
chi1d - suppor t
states. . . .
436 So. 2d at 1123 (emphasis by the court). The quoted language is unchanged in the current statute. Mr. Helrnick argued that by this reference only to child support in the 1979 amendment, the legislature had intended to alter
existing law so that URESA and no longer to alimony. the argument, stating that
would apply only to child support The Fifth District Court rejected if the legislature intended this
result i n reenacting URESA in 1979, this intent clearly by providing new
it should have expressed definitions. 436 So. 2d
The Court stated:
If the legislature had distinguish between child
alimony it would have defined this term, especially in light of previous judicial interpretation applying URESA to alimony awards.
436 So. 2d at 1124.