(a) A tribunal of this state may exercise jurisdiction to establish a support order if the petition or comparable pleading is filed after a petition or comparable pleading is filed in another state or a foreign country only if:
(1) the petition or comparable pleading in this state is filed before the expiration of the time allowed in the other state or the foreign country for filing a responsive pleading challenging the exercise of jurisdiction by the other state or the foreign country;
(2) the contesting party timely challenges the exercise of jurisdiction in the other state or the foreign country; and
(3) if relevant, this state is the home state of the child.
(b) A tribunal of this state may not exercise jurisdiction to establish a support order if the petition or comparable pleading is filed before a petition or comparable pleading is filed in another state or a foreign country if:
(1) the petition or comparable pleading in the other state or foreign country is filed before the expiration of the time allowed in this state for filing a responsive pleading challenging the exercise of jurisdiction by this state;
(2) the contesting party timely challenges the exercise of jurisdiction in this state; and
(3) if relevant, the other state or foreign country is the home state of the child.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1999–2016 · leading case:
Kasdan v. Berney, 587 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
Kasdan v. Berney, 587 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 30× “The trial court held: (1) registration of the Virginia support order in Minnesota did not confer continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to Minnesota; (2) notice of registration is not a petition or comparable pleading under Minn.Stat. § 518C.204 (1996); (3) Berney’s petition for…”
Hanger v. Hanger, 2012 OK CIV APP 26 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011).
“" 28 The Minnesota court considered Minn.Stat. § 518C.204, entitled "Simultaneous Proceedings in Another State" 29 and found that because Husband's petition for divoree did not include a specific request for relief in the form of a child support order, Wife's divorce petition,…”
Minn. Stat. § 518C.204(a): 1 case
Kasdan v. Berney, 587 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
“The trial court held: (1) registration of the Virginia support order in Minnesota did not confer continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to Minnesota; (2) notice of registration is not a petition or comparable pleading under Minn.Stat. § 518C.204 (1996); (3) Berney’s petition for…”
Minn. Stat. § 518C.204(a)(2): 1 case
Kasdan v. Berney, 587 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
“The trial court held: (1) registration of the Virginia support order in Minnesota did not confer continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to Minnesota; (2) notice of registration is not a petition or comparable pleading under Minn.Stat. § 518C.204 (1996); (3) Berney’s petition for…”
Minn. Stat. § 518C.204(a)(3): 1 case
Kasdan v. Berney, 587 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
“The trial court held: (1) registration of the Virginia support order in Minnesota did not confer continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to Minnesota; (2) notice of registration is not a petition or comparable pleading under Minn.Stat. § 518C.204 (1996); (3) Berney’s petition for…”
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.