Home
Jacksonville Location Phone Call/Texting Policy How do Fees Work?
Criminal Defense DUI Defense Foreclosure Defense Copyright Workers Compensation Attorney Jacksonville Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statutes Georgia Code Jacksonville Accident Attorney Real Estate Attorney Jacksonville Florida Criminal Lawyer Jacksonville Notary Public
Menu
904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 88.2071 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 88.2071 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 88.2071

The 2023 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 88
UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 88.2071
88.2071 Determination of controlling child support order.—
(1) If a proceeding is brought under this act and only one tribunal has issued a child support order, the order of that tribunal controls and must be recognized.
(2) If a proceeding is brought under this act, and two or more child support orders have been issued by tribunals of this state, another state, or a foreign country with regard to the same obligor and the same child, a tribunal of this state having personal jurisdiction over both the obligor and individual obligee shall apply the following rules and by order shall determine which order controls and must be recognized:
(a) If only one of the tribunals would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this act, the order of that tribunal controls.
(b) If more than one of the tribunals would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this act:
1. An order issued by a tribunal in the current home state of the child controls; or
2. If an order has not been issued in the current home state of the child, the order most recently issued controls.
(c) If none of the tribunals would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this act, the tribunal of this state shall issue a child support order, which controls.
(3) If two or more child support orders have been issued for the same obligor and the same child, upon request of a party who is an individual or that is a support enforcement agency, a tribunal of this state having personal jurisdiction over both the obligor and the obligee who is an individual shall determine which order controls under subsection (2). The request may be filed with a registration for enforcement or registration for modification pursuant to part VI of this chapter, or may be filed as a separate proceeding.
(4) A request to determine which is the controlling order must be accompanied by a copy of every child support order in effect and the applicable record of payments. The requesting party shall give notice of the request to each party whose rights may be affected by the determination.
(5) The tribunal that issued the controlling order under subsection (1), subsection (2), or subsection (3) has continuing jurisdiction to the extent provided in s. 88.2051 or s. 88.2061.
(6) A tribunal of this state that determines by order which is the controlling order under paragraph (2)(a), paragraph (2)(b), or subsection (3) or that issues a new controlling order under paragraph (2)(c) shall state in that order:
(a) The basis upon which the tribunal made its determination;
(b) The amount of prospective support, if any; and
(c) The total amount of consolidated arrears and accrued interest, if any, under all of the orders after all payments made are credited as provided by s. 88.2091.
(7) Within 30 days after issuance of an order determining which is the controlling order, the party obtaining the order shall file a certified copy of it in each tribunal that issued or registered an earlier order of child support. A party or support enforcement agency obtaining the order that fails to file a certified copy is subject to appropriate sanctions by a tribunal in which the issue of failure to file arises. The failure to file does not affect the validity or enforceability of the controlling order.
(8) An order that has been determined to be the controlling order, or a judgment for consolidated arrears of support and interest, if any, made pursuant to this section must be recognized in proceedings under this act.
History.—s. 2, ch. 96-189; s. 17, ch. 97-170; s. 11, ch. 2011-92.

F.S. 88.2071 on Google Scholar

F.S. 88.2071 on Casetext

Amendments to 88.2071


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 88.2071
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 88.2071.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All

  1. Rose v. Zingale

    2:21-cv-338-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla. May. 10, 2022)
    Indeed, Mr. Rose continues to generally rely on several sources of authority, and it is unclear whether he seeks to raise separate causes of action based on the various violations he alleges. For example, Mr. Rose first alleges that Mr. Zingale violated his “Civil Rights under the 14th Amendment, specifically the section that states ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; no [sic] shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; no [sic] deny [to] any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'” (Doc. 45 at 2.) Only later in the complaint does he somewhat specify that he is raising a claim based on Mr. Zingale “garnish[ing] payments . . ., more than the Court ordered, without due process of law.” (Id.) He then asserts that this constitutes a violation of sections 207 and 209 of UIFSA and section 88.2071, Florida Statutes. (Id. at 2-3.)
    PAGE 5

  2. Houston v. Maglio

    845 So. 2d 971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 1 times
    Once a Florida support order is entered, either party may request that Florida enter an order determining which support order controls, and a certified copy of that order may be filed with Michigan. § 88.2071(3)-(6). Any amounts paid under the Michigan order while the Florida order is in force must be credited against the Florida obligation. § 88.2091, Fla. Stat. (2002). If Maglio seeks to challenge entry of the Michigan order and his obligations under said order, he must bring that challenge in the Michigan courts. See Barr v. Barr, 749 So.2d 992 (Pa.Super.Ct. 2000).
    PAGE 973

  3. Department of Revenue v. Cascella

    751 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 6 times
    On February 24, 1999, the Department filed a motion in this proceeding to determine whether the Connecticut child support judgment or the 1994 URESA child support order was controlling, and which should be recognized pursuant to section 88.2071(2) of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). This statute provides in part:
    PAGE 1275

  4. Department of Revenue v. Sloan

    743 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 6 times
    On October 19, 1998, the DOR, pursuant to section 88.2071, Florida Statutes, filed a motion for determination of controlling child support order. The motion sought an adjudication as to which order, the Michigan or Florida order, is controlling. The trial court ruled that the Florida order is the controlling child support order because it is the latest order and was entered by a Florida judge who "made a considered decision as to what the appropriate child support should be." The court additionally ruled that all arrearages and ongoing support shall be calculated consistent with the terms of the Florida order. We find this to be error and reverse.
    PAGE 1133

    Cases from cite.case.law:

    HOUSTON v. A. MAGLIO,, 845 So. 2d 971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

    . . . . §§ 88.2051(l)(a) 88.2071(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . . determining which support order controls, and a certified copy of that order may be filed with Michigan. § 88.2071 . . .

    DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CASCELLA, v. CASCELLA,, 751 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

    . . . 1994 URESA child support order was controlling, and which should be recognized pursuant to section 88.2071 . . .

    DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE E. SLOAN, v. E. SLOAN,, 743 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

    . . . On October 19, 1998, the DOR, pursuant to section 88.2071, Florida Statutes, filed a motion for determination . . .