Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 88.6071 (2025)
Contest of registration or enforcement.
✓ 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
88.6071 Contest of registration or enforcement.—
(1) A party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered support order or seeking to vacate the registration has the burden of proving one or more of the following defenses:
(a) The issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party;
(b) The order was obtained by fraud;
(c) The order has been vacated, suspended, or modified by a later order;
(d) The issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal;
(e) There is a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought;
(f) Full or partial payment has been made;
(g) The statute of limitation under s. 88.6041 precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages; or
(h) The alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.
(2) If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under subsection (1), a tribunal may stay enforcement of a registered support order, continue the proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence, and issue other appropriate orders. An uncontested portion of the registered support order may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of this state.
(3) If the contesting party does not establish a defense under subsection (1) to the validity or enforcement of a registered support order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1998–2012 · leading case: Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Diaz, 647 F.3d 1073 (11th Cir. 2011).
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Diaz, 647 F.3d 1073 (11th Cir. 2011). “Interstate Family Support Act § 607(a)(6) (amended 2008) (providing that a party may contest the validity of enforcement of a child-support order on the grounds that “full or partial payment has been made”) (enacted in Florida at Fla. Stat. § 88.6071 (l)(f) and in Virginia at Va.”
Dep't of Revenue v. Marchines, 974 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “) Pursuant to section 88.6071(1)(3), Mr. Marchines asserted “a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought,” i.”
Wellington v. Dept. of Revenue, 708 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “§ 88.6071(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ.”
Logan v. Logan, 920 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). “However, the hearing officer found that laches was not applicable because Joan diligently pursued collection of child support by initiating legal action several times over several years to seek enforcement. The circuit judge approved and confirmed the report and recommendation.”
Keeton v. Keeton, 807 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). “REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with section 88.6071(3), Florida Statutes (2000).”
Houston v. Maglio, 845 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “§ 88.6071(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1998). Armed with this order denying registration of the Michigan child support, Mag-lio’s local counsel contacted the Genesee County Friend of Court Child Support Unit and requested the reimbursement of ,645.”
Dep't of Revenue v. Ortiz, 84 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “” § 88.6071(1) Fla. Stat. (2010). Here, the former husband neither requested a hearing within twenty days nor pled or proved a basis to object to the registration.”
— 88.6071(1) — 1 case
Dep't of Revenue v. Ortiz, 84 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “” § 88.6071(1) Fla. Stat. (2010). Here, the former husband neither requested a hearing within twenty days nor pled or proved a basis to object to the registration.”
— 88.6071(1)(3) — 1 case
Dep't of Revenue v. Marchines, 974 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “) Pursuant to section 88.6071(1)(3), Mr. Marchines asserted “a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought,” i.”
— 88.6071(1)(a) — 1 case
Wellington v. Dept. of Revenue, 708 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “§ 88.6071(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ.”
— 88.6071(2) — 1 case
Dep't of Revenue v. Marchines, 974 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “) Pursuant to section 88.6071(1)(3), Mr. Marchines asserted “a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought,” i.”
— 88.6071(3) — 1 case
Keeton v. Keeton, 807 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). “REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with section 88.6071(3), Florida Statutes (2000).”
— 88.6071(l)(a) — 2 cases
Logan v. Logan, 920 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). “However, the hearing officer found that laches was not applicable because Joan diligently pursued collection of child support by initiating legal action several times over several years to seek enforcement. The circuit judge approved and confirmed the report and recommendation.”
Houston v. Maglio, 845 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “§ 88.6071(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1998). Armed with this order denying registration of the Michigan child support, Mag-lio’s local counsel contacted the Genesee County Friend of Court Child Support Unit and requested the reimbursement of ,645.”
— 88.6071(l)(e) — 1 case
Dep't of Revenue v. Marchines, 974 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “) Pursuant to section 88.6071(1)(3), Mr. Marchines asserted “a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought,” i.”
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.