The 2023 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
Despite the obvious logic of allowing the two former spouses now living in Tennessee to resolve their dispute there, we must reverse. Under UIFSA, the Miami-Dade court has "continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order throughout the existence of the support obligation." § 88.2051(6) (emphasis added). The correct procedure under UIFSA is to register the spousal support judgment in another state for enforcement there. § 88.301 l(2)(c). Even after registration, however, the foreign court must send the case back to the Florida court to consider any modification of the order. § 88.2061( 2) ("A tribunal of this state having continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a support order may act as a responding tribunal to enforce or modify the order."). Under UIFSA, out-of-state courts may enforce Florida spousal support orders but may not modify them. Spalding v. Spalding, 886 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Vinnik v. Vinnik 831 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). See § 88.6031(3) ("Except as otherwise provided in this article, a tribunal of this state shall recognize and enforce, but may not modify, a registered order if the issuing tribunal had jurisdiction."…
The Former Wife, who opposed any reduction, argued that under section 88.2061(3), Florida Statutes (2003), the Commonwealth of Massachusetts retained exclusive jurisdiction over the alimony order. That statute reads as follows:
. . . . § 88.2061(2) (“A tribunal of this state having continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a support order . . .
. . . The Former Wife, who opposed any reduction, argued that under section 88.2061(3), Florida Statutes (2003 . . . Sections 88.2051, 88.2061(3) and 88.6031, Florida Statutes (2003), three of the provisions of UIFSA implicated . . . Similarly, under section 88.2061(3), a court of Florida that lacks continuing exclusive jurisdiction . . .