ILCS » Chapter 750 · Act 22
Illinois Compiled Statutes

750 ILCS 22/211 (2026)

Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify spousal-support order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(750 ILCS 22/211)
    Sec. 211. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify spousal-support order.
    (a) A tribunal of this State issuing a spousal-support order consistent with the law of this State has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the spousal-support order throughout the existence of the support obligation.
    (b) A tribunal of this State may not modify a spousal-support order issued by a tribunal of another state or a foreign country having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state or foreign country.
    (c) A tribunal of this State that has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal-support order may serve as:
        (1) an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of
    
another state to enforce the spousal-support order issued in this State; or
        (2) a responding tribunal to enforce or modify its
    
own spousal-support order.
(Source: P.A. 99-119, eff. 1-1-16.)


 
    (750 ILCS 22/Art. 3 heading)
ARTICLE 3. CIVIL PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2016–2017 · leading case: In re Marriage of Armstrong, 2016 IL App (2d) 150815, 68 N.E.3d 1039.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Marriage of Armstrong, 2016 IL App (2d) 150815, 68 N.E.3d 1039. · cites it 4× “ANALYSIS ¶ 14 Mark argues that the July 23, 2003, order is void for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction, because only Connecticut, as the issuing state, had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify maintenance, pursuant to section 211 of the Family Support Act (750 ILCS…”
In re Marriage of Armstrong, 2016 IL App (2d) 150815. · cites it 4× “ANALYSIS ¶ 15 Mark argues that the July 23, 2003, order is void for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction because only Connecticut, as the issuing state, had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify maintenance, pursuant to section 211 of the Family Support Act (750 ILCS…”
In re Marriage of Armstrong, 2016 IL App (2d) 150815. · cites it 4× “ANALYSIS ¶ 15 Mark argues that the July 23, 2003, order is void for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction, because only Connecticut, as the issuing state, had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify maintenance, pursuant to section 211 of the Family Support Act (750 ILCS…”
750 ILCS 22/211(b): 3 cases
In re Marriage of Armstrong, 2016 IL App (2d) 150815, 68 N.E.3d 1039. “ANALYSIS ¶ 14 Mark argues that the July 23, 2003, order is void for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction, because only Connecticut, as the issuing state, had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify maintenance, pursuant to section 211 of the Family Support Act (750 ILCS…”
In re Marriage of Armstrong, 2016 IL App (2d) 150815. “ANALYSIS ¶ 15 Mark argues that the July 23, 2003, order is void for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction because only Connecticut, as the issuing state, had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify maintenance, pursuant to section 211 of the Family Support Act (750 ILCS…”
In re Marriage of Armstrong, 2016 IL App (2d) 150815. “ANALYSIS ¶ 15 Mark argues that the July 23, 2003, order is void for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction, because only Connecticut, as the issuing state, had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify maintenance, pursuant to section 211 of the Family Support Act (750 ILCS…”
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.