ILCS » Chapter 750 · Act 22
Illinois Compiled Statutes

750 ILCS 22/607 (2026)

Contest of registration or enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(750 ILCS 22/607)
    Sec. 607. Contest of registration or enforcement.
    (a) 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:
        (1) the issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction
    
over the contesting party;
        (2) the order was obtained by fraud;
        (3) the order has been vacated, suspended, or
    
modified by a later order;
        (4) the issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending
    
appeal;
        (5) there is a defense under the law of this State to
    
the remedy sought;
        (6) full or partial payment has been made;
        (7) the statute of limitation under Section 604
    
precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages; or
        (8) the alleged controlling order is not the
    
controlling order.
    (b) If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under subsection (a), 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.
    (c) If the contesting party does not establish a defense under subsection (a) to the validity or enforcement of a registered support order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order.
(Source: P.A. 99-119, eff. 1-1-16.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2002–2014 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Kohl, 778 N.E.2d 1169 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Kohl, 778 N.E.2d 1169 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “On April 9, 1999, Menahem filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in pertinent part that the combined petition should be dismissed pursuant to section 2 — 619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 619(a)(9) (West 1998)) and section 607 of the Uniform Act (750 ILCS…”
Dep't of Healthcare & Fam. Servs. Ex Rel. Heard v. Heard, 916 N.E.2d 61 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “750 ILCS 22/607 (West 2008). First, we consider whether Kevin’s contacts with Germany were sufficient to require Kevin to defend the child support action in a German court.”
Raymond Ervin v. Sarina Ervin, 571 F. App'x 464 (7th Cir. 2014). “The Circuit Court of Lake County (IL) rejected that argument and confirmed the registered order pursuant to 750 ILCS 22/607(c). The state appellate court affirmed its judgment, and in 2009 the Supreme Court of Illinois denied Raymond’s petition for leave to appeal.”
In re Marriage of Kohl (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “On April 9, 1999, Menahem filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in pertinent part that the combined petition should be dismissed pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 1998)) and section 607 of the Uniform Act (750 ILCS 22/607…”
— 750 ILCS 22/607(a)(1) — 2 cases
In Re Marriage of Kohl, 778 N.E.2d 1169 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “On April 9, 1999, Menahem filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in pertinent part that the combined petition should be dismissed pursuant to section 2 — 619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 619(a)(9) (West 1998)) and section 607 of the Uniform Act (750 ILCS…”
In re Marriage of Kohl (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “On April 9, 1999, Menahem filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in pertinent part that the combined petition should be dismissed pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 1998)) and section 607 of the Uniform Act (750 ILCS 22/607…”
— 750 ILCS 22/607(a)(l) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Kohl, 778 N.E.2d 1169 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “On April 9, 1999, Menahem filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in pertinent part that the combined petition should be dismissed pursuant to section 2 — 619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 619(a)(9) (West 1998)) and section 607 of the Uniform Act (750 ILCS…”
— 750 ILCS 22/607(c) — 1 case
Raymond Ervin v. Sarina Ervin, 571 F. App'x 464 (7th Cir. 2014). “The Circuit Court of Lake County (IL) rejected that argument and confirmed the registered order pursuant to 750 ILCS 22/607(c). The state appellate court affirmed its judgment, and in 2009 the Supreme Court of Illinois denied Raymond’s petition for leave to appeal.”
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.