(1) If KRS 407.5613 does not apply, upon petition a tribunal of this state may modify a child support order issued in another state which is registered in this state if, after notice and hearing, the tribunal finds that:
(a) The following requirements are met:
1. Neither the child, nor the obligee who is an individual, nor the obligor resides in the issuing state;
2. A petitioner who is a nonresident of this state seeks modification; and
3. The respondent is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this state; or
(b) This state is the residence of the child, or a party who is an individual is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this state, and all of the parties who are individuals have filed consents in a record in the issuing tribunal for a tribunal of this state to modify the support order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
(2) Modification of a registered child support order is subject to the same requirements, procedures, and defenses that apply to the modification of an order issued by a tribunal of this state and the order may be enforced and satisfied in the same manner.
(3) A tribunal of this state may not modify any aspect of a child support order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing state, including the duration of the obligation of support. If two (2) or more tribunals have issued child support orders for the same obligor and same child, the order that controls and shall be so recognized under KRS 407.5207 establishes the aspects of the support order which are nonmodifiable.
(4) In a proceeding to modify a child support order, the law of the state that is determined to have issued the initial controlling order governs the duration of the obligation of support. The obligor's fulfillment of the duty of support established by that order precludes imposition of a further obligation of support by a tribunal of this state.
(5) On the issuance of an order by a tribunal of this state modifying a child support order issued in another state, the tribunal of this state becomes the tribunal having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
(6) Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (5) of this section and KRS 407.5201(2), a tribunal of this state retains jurisdiction to modify an order issued by a tribunal of this state if:
(a) One (1) party resides in another state; and
(b) The other party resides outside the United States. Effective: June 24, 2015 History: Repealed and reenacted 2015 Ky. Acts ch. 18, sec. 50, effective June 24, 2015. -- Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 101, sec. 17, effective March 23, 1998.-- Contingent effective date repealed 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 101, sec. 20, effective March 23, 1998. -- Created 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 365, sec. 56, effective upon contingency.
Notes of Decisions
Adams-Smyrichinsky v. Smyrichinsky, 467 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2015).
· cites it 7× “KRS 407.5611; 407.5613. If all the parties and the child have left the issuing state, a Kentucky court has jurisdiction to modify under KRS 407.”
Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 733 (Ky. 2007).
· cites it 3× “5613, which governs the power to modify support decrees where all the parties are Kentucky residents; and KRS 407.5611, which allows modification of a foreign child support order that has been registered in Kentucky only where the parties consented in writing in the issuing…”
Roberts v. Bedard, 357 S.W.3d 554 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 9× “5201(1) a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who has been personally served in this state, it must also have subject-matter jurisdiction under the requirements of KRS 407.5611 before it can modify a child support order from another state.”
Ijeoma Odigwe v. Lauren Andrini (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 9× “6 Finally, Odigwe claimed the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction7 to modify the child support order because the requirements of KRS 407.5611 had not been satisfied. Andrini responded that Odigwe effectively registered the child support order when he registered the Consent…”
Ijeoma Odigwe v. Honorable Jay Wethington (Ky. 2022).
· cites it 4× “Similarly, he reasoned that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the child support order because all of the requirements of KRS 407.5611 had not been met. KRS 407.5611 states in relevant part that 5 See KRS 403.”
Koerner v. Koerner, 270 S.W.3d 413 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 5× “Our discussion then must focus on the requirements of KRS 407.5611 and KRS 407.5613. KRS 407.5613 provides that jurisdiction to modify a child support order of another state exists if “all of the parties who are individuals reside in this state and the child does not reside in…”
Bonnie Jean Nordike Now Holcomb v. Michael D. Nordike (Ky. 2007).
· cites it 2× “5613, which governs the power to modify support decrees where all the parties are Kentucky residents ; and KRS 407.5611, which allows modification of a foreign child support order that has been registered in Kentucky only where the parties consented in writing in the issuing…”
John L. Covert, II v. Sarah K. Drake (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“’ KRS 407.5611(3).” Id. at 778 . “Kentucky’s UIFSA choice-of-law provisions make it clear that duration of support is a matter of law of the issuing state because that is a non- modifiable aspect of the issuing state’s order.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5611(1) — 2 cases
Ijeoma Odigwe v. Honorable Jay Wethington (Ky. 2022).
“Similarly, he reasoned that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the child support order because all of the requirements of KRS 407.5611 had not been met. KRS 407.5611 states in relevant part that 5 See KRS 403.”
Koerner v. Koerner, 270 S.W.3d 413 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
“Our discussion then must focus on the requirements of KRS 407.5611 and KRS 407.5613. KRS 407.5613 provides that jurisdiction to modify a child support order of another state exists if “all of the parties who are individuals reside in this state and the child does not reside in…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5611(1)(a) — 1 case
Ijeoma Odigwe v. Lauren Andrini (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“6 Finally, Odigwe claimed the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction7 to modify the child support order because the requirements of KRS 407.5611 had not been satisfied. Andrini responded that Odigwe effectively registered the child support order when he registered the Consent…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5611(1)(b) — 1 case
Ijeoma Odigwe v. Lauren Andrini (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“6 Finally, Odigwe claimed the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction7 to modify the child support order because the requirements of KRS 407.5611 had not been satisfied. Andrini responded that Odigwe effectively registered the child support order when he registered the Consent…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5611(3) — 2 cases
Adams-Smyrichinsky v. Smyrichinsky, 467 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2015).
“KRS 407.5611; 407.5613. If all the parties and the child have left the issuing state, a Kentucky court has jurisdiction to modify under KRS 407.”
John L. Covert, II v. Sarah K. Drake (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“’ KRS 407.5611(3).” Id. at 778 . “Kentucky’s UIFSA choice-of-law provisions make it clear that duration of support is a matter of law of the issuing state because that is a non- modifiable aspect of the issuing state’s order.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5611(4) — 1 case
Adams-Smyrichinsky v. Smyrichinsky, 467 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2015).
“KRS 407.5611; 407.5613. If all the parties and the child have left the issuing state, a Kentucky court has jurisdiction to modify under KRS 407.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5611(l)(a) — 1 case
Koerner v. Koerner, 270 S.W.3d 413 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
“Our discussion then must focus on the requirements of KRS 407.5611 and KRS 407.5613. KRS 407.5613 provides that jurisdiction to modify a child support order of another state exists if “all of the parties who are individuals reside in this state and the child does not reside in…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5611(l)(a)(2) — 1 case
Roberts v. Bedard, 357 S.W.3d 554 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“5201(1) a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who has been personally served in this state, it must also have subject-matter jurisdiction under the requirements of KRS 407.5611 before it can modify a child support order from another state.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5611(l)(a)(3) — 1 case
Roberts v. Bedard, 357 S.W.3d 554 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“5201(1) a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who has been personally served in this state, it must also have subject-matter jurisdiction under the requirements of KRS 407.5611 before it can modify a child support order from another state.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5611(l)(a)(l) — 1 case
Roberts v. Bedard, 357 S.W.3d 554 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“5201(1) a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who has been personally served in this state, it must also have subject-matter jurisdiction under the requirements of KRS 407.5611 before it can modify a child support order from another state.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 407.5611(l)(b) — 1 case
Adams-Smyrichinsky v. Smyrichinsky, 467 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2015).
“KRS 407.5611; 407.5613. If all the parties and the child have left the issuing state, a Kentucky court has jurisdiction to modify under KRS 407.”
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.