Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-607 (2026)

Contest of registration or enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered support order or seeking to vacate the registration has the burden of proving one or more of the following defenses:
1. the issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party;
2. the order was obtained by fraud;
3. the order has been vacated, suspended, or modified by a later order;
4. the issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal;
5. there is a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought;
6. full or partial payment has been made;
7. the statute of limitation under § 9-17-604 precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages; or
8. the alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.
If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under subsection (a), a tribunal may stay enforcement of a registered support order, continue the proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence, and issue other appropriate orders. An uncontested portion of the registered support order may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of this state.
If the contesting party does not establish a defense under subsection (a) to the validity or enforcement of a registered support order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order.

History. Acts 1993, No. 468, § 1; 2015, No. 888, § 1.

Amendments. The 2015 amendment inserted “support” in the introductory language of (a); in (a)(7), deleted “(Choice of law)” following “§ 9-17-604” and inserted “alleged”; added (a)(8); in (b), deleted “of this section” following “subsection (a)” and inserted “support” twice; and, in (c), deleted “of this section” following “subsection (a)” and substituted “a registered support order” for “the order”.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

The notice and hearing procedures set out in §§ 9-17-605 — 9-17-607 do not contravene the due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. State of Wash. v. Thompson, 339 Ark. 417, 6 S.W.3d 82 (1999).

Burden of Proof.

Trial court properly found that father met his burden of proof for purposes of contesting the registration of a 1979 Indiana child support order based on the 10-year statute of limitations in Ind. Code § 34-11-2-10 where the son turned 18 on June 30, 1991; any action to enforce the child support obligation had to have been brought by June 2001 and, because the action in Arkansas was not brought until October 2003, it was barred by the statute of limitations. Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Reagan, 89 Ark. App. 262, 202 S.W.3d 10 (2005).

Defense Allowed.

Trial court properly concluded that the ex-husband was not barred from presenting any defense allowed under this section; in addition to not being properly served with the required notice, the information served indicated that he had 30 days to respond (rather than 20 days) and that a hearing had already been requested. Medeiros v. Medeiros, 2017 Ark. App. 122, 514 S.W.3d 504 (2017).

Laches.

Trial court did not err in applying Arkansas law on laches to defeat the ex-wife's claim given subdivision (a)(5) of this section; the ex-wife had waited nearly 25 years to initiate a proceeding to collect spousal support. Medeiros v. Medeiros, 2017 Ark. App. 122, 514 S.W.3d 504 (2017).

Cited: Pulaski County Child Support Enforcement Unit v. Norem, 328 Ark. 546, 944 S.W.2d 846 (1997); Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Cook, 60 Ark. App. 193, 959 S.W.2d 763 (1998).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1997–2017 · leading case: State of Washington v. Thompson, 6 S.W.3d 82 (Ark. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Washington v. Thompson, 6 S.W.3d 82 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-605 (b). Personal jurisdiction is specifically listed as a basis for contesting the validity of a foreign support order in Ark.”

Medeiros v. Medeiros, 2017 Ark. App. 122 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-607 (5) (emphasis added).”

Off. of Child Support Enf't v. Neely, 41 S.W.3d 423 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-607 (a) (3). However, he failed to contest the Texas order’s registration or ask for a hearing within twenty days after receiving notice of its registration.”

Off. of Child Support Enf't v. Cook, 959 S.W.2d 763 (Ark. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Appellee contends that, as provided in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-607 (a)(5), he had a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought because the Florida order required him to pay “more child support per week than he had income per week.”

Off. of Child Support Enf't v. Reagan, 202 S.W.3d 10 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “According to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-604 (Repl. 2002), the appropriate statute of limitations to apply in this case is that of Indiana.”

Pulaski Cnty. Child Support Enf't Unit v. Norem, 944 S.W.2d 846 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 3× “In particular, appellant claims the Arkansas chancery judge exceeded his authority under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-607 (b) (Repl. 1993) by issuing an order which effectively stayed a North Dakota child-support order and improperly established child support in an amount different…”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-607(b) — 1 case

Pulaski Cnty. Child Support Enf't Unit v. Norem, 944 S.W.2d 846 (Ark. 1997). “In particular, appellant claims the Arkansas chancery judge exceeded his authority under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-607 (b) (Repl. 1993) by issuing an order which effectively stayed a North Dakota child-support order and improperly established child support in an amount different…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.