X hits on this document

44 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

8 / 16

that the URESA provisions had been applied to alimony in the

past.

The former husband asserted that a 1979 amendment

the statute indicated a referred specifically to

contrary legislative Section 88.012, which

intent. states:

to He

Common-law

and

governing

the

statutory remedies

procedures

for

the

establishment and enforcement of orders

of support for

children by

responsible

parents under

the

Uniform

Reciprocal

proven Enforcement of S u p p o r t s u f f i c i e n t l y

Act have

not

effective

01

efficient to cope with the increasing incidence of establishing and collecting

chi1d - suppor t

obligations

petitioner

and

respondent

when

the

reside

in

different

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

at 1123.

The Court stated:

If the legislature had distinguish between child

meant support

to and

alimony it would have defined this term, especially in light of previous judicial interpretation applying URESA to alimony awards.

436 So. 2d at 1124.

5

Document info
Document views44
Page views44
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 23:41:01 UTC 2016
Pages16
Paragraphs691
Words2885

Comments