(a) 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 section 14-5-604 precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages; or
(8) The alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.
(b) If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under subsection (a) of this section, 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.
(c) If the contesting party does not establish a defense under subsection (a) of this section to the validity or enforcement of a registered support order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order.
Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1598, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2003: (a)(6) and (a)(7) amended and (a)(8) added, p. 1260, § 37, effective July 1, 2004. L. 2015: Entire part amended, (HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 558, § 31, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Vogan v. Cnty. of San Diego, 193 P.3d 336 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “We conclude that section 14-5-607(b), C.R.S.2007, establishes jurisdiction over defendants with respect to plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and restitution of funds allegedly improperly collected by them.”
People Ex Rel. State of Wyo. v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 8× “The party contesting the validity or enforcement of the foreign order has the burden *821 of proving one or more of the seven statutory defenses set forth in §14-5-607(a), C.R.S.1998. Here, mother raised three defenses: (1) the Alaska court lacked personal jurisdiction over her…”
In re the Marriage of Lohman, 2015 COA 134 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “section 14-5-607(a)(1)." As discussed below, this provision of UIFSA expressly provides that lack of personal jurisdiction over the party contesting registration is a valid defense to registration.”
People ex. rel. State ex. rel. Watson v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “The party contesting the validity or en-fox-cement of the foreign order has the bur *821 den of proving one or more of the seven statutory defenses set forth in §14-5-607(a), C.R.S.1998. Here, mother raised three defenses: (1) the Alaska court lacked personal jurisdiction over…”
In re the Marriage of Lohman, 2015 COA 134 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “section 14-5-607(a)(1).â As discussed below, this provision of UIFSA expressly provides that lack of personal jurisdiction over the party contesting registration is a valid defense to registration.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-5-607(a): 2 cases
People Ex Rel. State of Wyo. v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“The party contesting the validity or enforcement of the foreign order has the burden *821 of proving one or more of the seven statutory defenses set forth in §14-5-607(a), C.R.S.1998. Here, mother raised three defenses: (1) the Alaska court lacked personal jurisdiction over her…”
People ex. rel. State ex. rel. Watson v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“The party contesting the validity or en-fox-cement of the foreign order has the bur *821 den of proving one or more of the seven statutory defenses set forth in §14-5-607(a), C.R.S.1998. Here, mother raised three defenses: (1) the Alaska court lacked personal jurisdiction over…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-5-607(a)(1): 3 cases
In re the Marriage of Lohman, 2015 COA 134 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“section 14-5-607(a)(1)." As discussed below, this provision of UIFSA expressly provides that lack of personal jurisdiction over the party contesting registration is a valid defense to registration.”
People Ex Rel. State of Wyo. v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“The party contesting the validity or enforcement of the foreign order has the burden *821 of proving one or more of the seven statutory defenses set forth in §14-5-607(a), C.R.S.1998. Here, mother raised three defenses: (1) the Alaska court lacked personal jurisdiction over her…”
In re the Marriage of Lohman, 2015 COA 134 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“section 14-5-607(a)(1).â As discussed below, this provision of UIFSA expressly provides that lack of personal jurisdiction over the party contesting registration is a valid defense to registration.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-5-607(a)(3): 2 cases
People Ex Rel. State of Wyo. v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“The party contesting the validity or enforcement of the foreign order has the burden *821 of proving one or more of the seven statutory defenses set forth in §14-5-607(a), C.R.S.1998. Here, mother raised three defenses: (1) the Alaska court lacked personal jurisdiction over her…”
People ex. rel. State ex. rel. Watson v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“The party contesting the validity or en-fox-cement of the foreign order has the bur *821 den of proving one or more of the seven statutory defenses set forth in §14-5-607(a), C.R.S.1998. Here, mother raised three defenses: (1) the Alaska court lacked personal jurisdiction over…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-5-607(a)(5): 1 case
People Ex Rel. State of Wyo. v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“The party contesting the validity or enforcement of the foreign order has the burden *821 of proving one or more of the seven statutory defenses set forth in §14-5-607(a), C.R.S.1998. Here, mother raised three defenses: (1) the Alaska court lacked personal jurisdiction over her…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-5-607(b): 1 case
Vogan v. Cnty. of San Diego, 193 P.3d 336 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“We conclude that section 14-5-607(b), C.R.S.2007, establishes jurisdiction over defendants with respect to plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and restitution of funds allegedly improperly collected by them.”
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.