Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 407
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5211 (2026)

Continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify spousal support order

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) A tribunal of this state that has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal- support order may serve as:

(a) An initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to enforce the spousal support order issued in this state; or

(b) A responding tribunal to enforce or modify its own spousal support order. Effective: June 24, 2015 History: Created 2015 Ky. Acts ch. 18, sec. 14, effective June 24, 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: Adams-Smyrichinsky v. Smyrichinsky, 467 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adams-Smyrichinsky v. Smyrichinsky, 467 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2015). “KRS 407.5211. . Here, the issuing state is Indiana, which of course is not subject to KRS 407.”
Giese v. Giese, 529 S.W.3d 791 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017). “KRS 407.5211(2) states, “A tribunal of this state may not modify a spousal support order issued by a tribunal of another state .”
Theresa Johnson v. Michael Johnson, No. 2019 CA 000270 (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2021). · cites it 4× “” The plain text of these complementary statutes, and their inverse counterparts contained in KRS 407.5211(1) and S.C. Code Ann. § 63-17 - 3110(B), makes clear that Kentucky and South Carolina have commonly agreed upon limits to each state’s jurisdiction over spousal maintenance…”
Tahisha Crawford v. Kemo Crawford, No. 2025-CA-0712 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2026). “The Court discussed KRS 407.5211 and Tennessee’s similar statute, Tennessee Code Annotated 36-5-2211.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5211(1): 1 case
Theresa Johnson v. Michael Johnson, No. 2019 CA 000270 (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2021). “” The plain text of these complementary statutes, and their inverse counterparts contained in KRS 407.5211(1) and S.C. Code Ann. § 63-17 - 3110(B), makes clear that Kentucky and South Carolina have commonly agreed upon limits to each state’s jurisdiction over spousal maintenance…”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5211(2): 2 cases
Giese v. Giese, 529 S.W.3d 791 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017). “KRS 407.5211(2) states, “A tribunal of this state may not modify a spousal support order issued by a tribunal of another state .”
Theresa Johnson v. Michael Johnson, No. 2019 CA 000270 (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2021). “” The plain text of these complementary statutes, and their inverse counterparts contained in KRS 407.5211(1) and S.C. Code Ann. § 63-17 - 3110(B), makes clear that Kentucky and South Carolina have commonly agreed upon limits to each state’s jurisdiction over spousal maintenance…”
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.