Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 88.2051 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 88.2051 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 88.2051 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 88.2051

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 88
UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 88.2051
88.2051 Continuing exclusive jurisdiction.
(1) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and:
(a) At the time of the filing of a request for modification, this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or
(b) Even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.
(2) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if:
(a) All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; or
(b) Its order is not the controlling order.
(3) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to this act or a law substantially similar to this act which modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.
(4) A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.
(5) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.
History.s. 2, ch. 96-189; s. 16, ch. 97-170; s. 9, ch. 2011-92.

F.S. 88.2051 on Google Scholar

F.S. 88.2051 on CourtListener

Amendments to 88.2051


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 88.2051

Total Results: 14

Strommen v. Strommen

927 So. 2d 176, 2006 WL 1113527

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2006 | Docket: 1765502

Cited 14 times | Published

conditions of the child support payments." See also § 88.2051, Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 61.13(2)(c) provides:

Trissler v. Trissler

987 So. 2d 209, 2008 WL 2851566

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 2008 | Docket: 1724302

Cited 7 times | Published

issuing the order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(d); § 88.2051(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). But, the issuing state

Sootin v. Sootin

41 So. 3d 993, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11276, 2010 WL 3023361

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 4, 2010 | Docket: 1239095

Cited 4 times | Published

throughout the existence of the support obligation." § 88.2051(6) (emphasis added). The correct procedure under

Department of Revenue v. Cascella

751 So. 2d 1273, 2000 WL 282320

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2000 | Docket: 1712570

Cited 3 times | Published

tribunal controls and must be so recognized. Section 88.2051 of Florida's UIFSA defines continuing exclusive

Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Sloan v. Sloan

743 So. 2d 1131, 1999 WL 741170

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 1999 | Docket: 1670013

Cited 3 times | Published

currently resides in Marion County, Florida. Section 88.2051, Florida Statutes, part of the UIFSA, provides

Spalding v. Spalding

907 So. 2d 1270, 2005 WL 1842603

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 2005 | Docket: 468415

Cited 2 times | Published

assumed continuing exclusive jurisdiction. See § 88.2051(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). For purposes of the choice

Spalding v. Spalding

886 So. 2d 1075, 2004 WL 2623956

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 19, 2004 | Docket: 1380081

Cited 2 times | Published

defined term under UIFSA, is described in section 88.2051, Florida Statutes (2003). While the statute

Vinnik v. Vinnik

831 So. 2d 1271, 2002 WL 31828648

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 2002 | Docket: 1388050

Cited 2 times | Published

over that order under the law of that state. § 88.2051(6), Fla. Stat. (2001); § 580-205(f), N.Y. Family

Bouquety v. Bouquety

933 So. 2d 610, 2006 WL 1751752

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2006 | Docket: 1308495

Cited 1 times | Published

resolution of this case requires us to construe section 88.2051 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

Lamancusa v. DOR

250 So. 3d 812

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 2018 | Docket: 7371123

Published

jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(d) (2012); § 88.2051, Fla. Stat. (2013); Trissler, 987 So. 2d at 210

Ivko v. Ger

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 2017 | Docket: 6244879

Published

actions. Section 88.2051 of the UIFSA controls the outcome of this issue. Section 88.2051(1)(a) mandates

Mani v. Mani

927 So. 2d 1087, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760, 2006 WL 1328952

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 17, 2006 | Docket: 64844499

Published

(2004), the statute applied in Spalding. See § 88.2051(6), Fla. Stat. (2004). Brenda contends that the

Houston v. Maglio

845 So. 2d 971, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7963, 2003 WL 21180332

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 2003 | Docket: 64822936

Published

order. § 552.1224(l)(a), Mich. Stat. (2002); § 88.2051(4), Fla. Stat. (2002).1 Since Michigan lacks “continuing

Urso v. Urso

724 So. 2d 1253, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 667, 1999 WL 30686

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 1999 | Docket: 64785851

Published

had jurisdiction to modify its own order. See § 88.2051(l)-(4), Fla. *1254Stat. (1997)(setting forth the