Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 7-1048 (2026)

Procedure to contest validity or enforcement of registered support order. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Procedure to contest validity or enforcement of registered support order. 

(1) A nonregistering party seeking to contest the validity or enforcement of a registered support order in this state shall request a hearing within the time required by section 7-1047, Idaho Code. The nonregistering party may seek to vacate the registration, to assert any defense to an allegation of noncompliance with the registered order, or to contest the remedies being sought or the amount of any alleged arrearages pursuant to section 7-1049, Idaho Code.

(2)  If the nonregistering party fails to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered support order in a timely manner, the order is confirmed by operation of law.
(3)  If a nonregistering party requests a hearing to contest the validity or enforcement of the support registered order, the registering tribunal shall schedule the matter for hearing and give notice to the parties of the date, time, and place of the hearing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1974–1995 · leading case: Lynch v. Cheney, 561 P.2d 380 (Idaho 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lynch v. Cheney, 561 P.2d 380 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 2× “This order, which was apparently a Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Order made pursuant to I.C. §§ 7-1048 et seq., made no *240 mention of the California decree or the collection of any arrearages under it.”
State, Dep't of Health & Welfare, Ex Rel. Washington v. Annen, 889 P.2d 720 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 2× “See former I.C. §§ 7-1048 through 7-1089 (1969). At trial, the1'State of Idaho sought to establish paternity and an order for reimbursement of support payments on behalf of Jennifer dating back to 1989, as well as future support.”
State of Alaska Ex Rel. Sweat v. Hansen, 782 P.2d 50 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 7-1048 et seq. and Alaska Stat. § 25.”
Herrett v. Herrett, 670 P.2d 63 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “*359 Rodney Herrett filed his complaint in the magistrate division seeking child support from his former wife under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, I.C. §§ 7-1048 to 1089 (RURESA). For reasons which need not be considered here, the magistrate dismissed…”
State v. Valentine, 695 P.2d 418 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “A magistrate ordered Albert Valentine to pay child support in a civil proceeding brought under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, I.C. §§ 7-1048, -1089 (RURESA). Valentine’s appeal to the district court was dismissed for his failure to pay the estimated…”
Jagow v. Child, 521 P.2d 654 (Idaho 1974). · cites it 4× “Jagow that her case could be prosecuted under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (I.C. § 7-1048 et seq.), notwithstanding the fact divorce proceedings had started.”
Kinney v. Kinney, 453 A.2d 1321 (N.H. 1982). “*1167 In August 1981, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare filed a petition pursuant to that State’s enactment of URESA ( Idaho Code §§ 7-1048 through 7-1089) in the District Court of Latah County, Idaho.”
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.