Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 88.2051 (2025)

Continuing exclusive jurisdiction.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1999–2018 · leading case: Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). · cites it 6× “But, the issuing state loses such jurisdiction when neither the child nor any of the parties continue to reside in the state or when all of the parties file written consents with the issuing court to allow another state to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the…”

Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). · cites it 2× “" See also § 88.2051, Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 61.”

Spalding v. Spalding, 886 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). · cites it 6× “"Continuing exclusive jurisdiction," a defined term under UIFSA, is described in section 88.2051, Florida Statutes (2003).”

In Re Hattenbach, 999 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “1999); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 88.2051 (l)(a) (West Supp.”

Rassier v. Rassier, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2652 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Code, § 4909 and Fla. Stat. § 88.2051 ) now governs the jurisdiction of the courts to modify spousal support orders.”

Lamancusa v. DOR, 250 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 1738B(d); § 88.2051(1), Fla. Stat.; Trissler, 987 So.”

Straight v. Straight, 195 S.W.3d 461 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). “” Fla. Stat. § 88.2051 (4) (2006). Missouri entered the original support order pursuant to UIFSA and established continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the support order in 1999.”

Dep't of Revenue Ex Rel. Sloan v. Sloan, 743 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). · cites it 2× “Section 88.2051, Florida Statutes, part of the UIFSA, provides in relevant part: (1) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order: (a) As long as this state remains the…”

Spalding v. Spalding, 907 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). · cites it 2× “See § 88.2051(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). For purposes of the choice of law provisions of section 88.”

Vinnik v. Vinnik, 831 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 88.2051(6), Fla. Stat. (2001); § 580-205(f), N.”

Sootin v. Sootin, 41 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). “” § 88.2051(6) (emphasis added). The correct procedure under UIFSA is to register the spousal support judgment in another state for enforcement there.”

Freddo v. Freddo, 983 N.E.2d 1216 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). “Fla. Stat. § 88.2051 (1)(a) (2012). See 28 U.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— 88.2051(1) — 3 cases

Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “But, the issuing state loses such jurisdiction when neither the child nor any of the parties continue to reside in the state or when all of the parties file written consents with the issuing court to allow another state to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the…”

Lamancusa v. DOR, 250 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). “§ 1738B(d); § 88.2051(1), Fla. Stat.; Trissler, 987 So.”

Spalding v. Spalding, 907 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “See § 88.2051(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). For purposes of the choice of law provisions of section 88.”

— 88.2051(1)(a) — 1 case

Spalding v. Spalding, 886 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “"Continuing exclusive jurisdiction," a defined term under UIFSA, is described in section 88.2051, Florida Statutes (2003).”

— 88.2051(2) — 2 cases

Spalding v. Spalding, 886 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “"Continuing exclusive jurisdiction," a defined term under UIFSA, is described in section 88.2051, Florida Statutes (2003).”

Bouquety v. Bouquety, 933 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

— 88.2051(2)(a) — 1 case

Ivko v. Ger (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

— 88.2051(3) — 2 cases

Bouquety v. Bouquety, 933 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

Ivko v. Ger (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

— 88.2051(4) — 1 case

Houston v. Maglio, 845 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

— 88.2051(6) — 4 cases

Spalding v. Spalding, 886 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “"Continuing exclusive jurisdiction," a defined term under UIFSA, is described in section 88.2051, Florida Statutes (2003).”

Vinnik v. Vinnik, 831 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “§ 88.2051(6), Fla. Stat. (2001); § 580-205(f), N.”

Mani v. Mani, 927 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

— 88.2051(l) — 1 case

Urso v. Urso, 724 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

— 88.2051(l)(a) — 1 case

Houston v. Maglio, 845 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

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.