X hits on this document

45 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

9 / 16

The was

Circuit Court's

affirmed.

Id.

order

applying

the

URESA

law

to

alimony

In S t a t e

ex rel.

Quigley v.

Quigley,

446

So.

2d 1174

(Fla. 2d DCA 1984), quashed, 463 Second District Court disagreed In Quigley, the trial court had

So. 2d 224 (Fla. with the H e l m i c k

19851, the decision.

dismissed

the

former

wife's

petition decree.

for enforcement of alimony under a Michigan divorce On appeal, the Second District affirmed the dismissal

based lacks

upon the determination that a Florida circuit court subject matter jurisdiction under URESA to enforce such

provisions.

The

Court

rejected

the

Helmick

holding,

specifically finding that

the

legislative intent with

regard

to the URESA stated:

is

manifested

by

Section

88.012.

The

Court

Contrary to in W e l m i c k

our sister court's statement

that

section

88.012

makes

merely support

a "passing reference to child only," 436 So. 2d at 1123, this

section in times that enforcement

fact plainly says the URESA shall of foreign child

several apply to support

judgments. This section that the URESA shall alimony provisions of decrees.

not once remarks also apply to foreign divorce

446 So. 2d a t 1 1 7 5 . The Court reasoned that the legislature was presumed to be cognizant of the existing judicial construction of the statute when contemplating making changes in the statute. 446 So. 2d

at 1176. It changes in a

is presumed statute, it

that when the legislature effects intends to accord the statute a

6

Document info
Document views45
Page views45
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 03:12:04 UTC 2016
Pages16
Paragraphs691
Words2885

Comments