Florida Statute 88.2051 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 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 Casetext

Amendments to 88.2051

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 88.2051

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 88.2051.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 88.2051

Total Results: 20

Lamancusa v. DOR

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-06-25

Citation: 250 So. 3d 812

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

Ivko v. Ger

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-12-20

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

Pulkkinen v. Pulkkinen

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-11-26

Citation: 127 So. 3d 738, 2013 WL 6171269, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18794

Snippet: modify.”4 See, e.g., §§ 88.6111(l)(b), 88.6131(1), 88.2051(2). Those requirements include the petitioner’s

Sootin v. Sootin

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-08-04

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

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

Trissler v. Trissler

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-07-25

Citation: 987 So. 2d 209, 2008 WL 2851566

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

Bouquety v. Bouquety

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-06-28

Citation: 933 So. 2d 610, 2006 WL 1751752

Snippet: resolution of this case requires us to construe section 88.2051 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)

Mani v. Mani

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-05-17

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

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

Strommen v. Strommen

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-04-28

Citation: 927 So. 2d 176, 2006 WL 1113527

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

Spalding v. Spalding

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-08-05

Citation: 907 So. 2d 1270, 2005 WL 1842603

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

Spalding v. Spalding

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-11-19

Citation: 886 So. 2d 1075, 2004 WL 2623956

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

Houston v. Maglio

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2003-05-21

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

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

Vinnik v. Vinnik

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-12-18

Citation: 831 So. 2d 1271, 2002 WL 31828648

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

Department of Revenue v. Cascella

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-03-17

Citation: 751 So. 2d 1273, 2000 WL 282320

Snippet: 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

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-09-17

Citation: 743 So. 2d 1131, 1999 WL 741170

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

Urso v. Urso

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-01-27

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

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

Green v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-04-22

Citation: 578 So. 2d 447, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3645, 1991 WL 60006

Snippet: of incarceration imposed for sale of cocaine (88-2051), which offense antedated the amendment, inappropriate

Sanders v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-12-20

Citation: 553 So. 2d 795, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7298, 1989 WL 154952

Snippet: PER CURIAM. Appellant pleaded no contest to charges of purchasing and possessing the same cocaine, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the possession charge on the basis of Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987), and Gordon v. State, 528 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), decision approved sub nom., State v. Smith, 547 So.2d 613 (Fla.1989). See also Lends v. State, 545 So.2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Pursuant to the above authorities, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s

Weller v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-08-10

Citation: 547 So. 2d 997, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1904, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4602, 1989 WL 90486

Snippet: ZEHMER, Judge. We review the denial of a petition for mandamus by which Robert W. Weller sought to compel the Florida Parole Commission to grant him gain time against his sentence. Weller was convicted of two counts of second degree murder with a firearm, one count of attempted first degree murder with a firearm, one count of robbery with a firearm, and one count of trafficking in cocaine. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on each of the first three counts, with the 3-year minimum mandatory

Bocchino v. Braner

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-07-13

Citation: 546 So. 2d 1121, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1677, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3924, 1989 WL 75726

Snippet: DAUKSCH, Judge. The former husband appeals from an order requiring him to pay an increased amount of child support beyond each child’s eighteenth birthday. The original order of dissolution, entered in March 1973, required the former husband to pay $75 per month per child until each child reaches the age of twenty-one years. The age of majority was lowered to eighteen years on July 1, 1973. § 743.07, Fla.Stat. (1973). The current order modifies the support amount to $500 per child per month until

Tampa Associates, Ltd. v. Miami Elevator Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-06-20

Citation: 545 So. 2d 458, 1989 WL 65886

Snippet: COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation, Appellee. No. 88-2051. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District