(a) If section 518C.613 does not apply, upon petition a tribunal of this state may modify a child support order issued in another state that is registered in this state if, after notice and hearing, it finds that:
(1) the following requirements are met:
(i) neither the child, nor the obligee who is an individual, nor the obligor resides in the issuing state;
(ii) a petitioner who is a nonresident of this state seeks modification; and
(iii) the respondent is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this state; or
(2) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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 or more tribunals have issued child support orders for the same obligor and child, the order that controls and must be recognized under section 518C.207 establishes the aspects of the support order which are nonmodifiable.
(d) 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.
(e) On issuance of an order by a tribunal of this state modifying a child support order issued in another state, a tribunal of this state becomes the tribunal having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
(f) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) to (e) and section 518C.201, paragraph (b), a tribunal of this state retains jurisdiction to modify an order issued by a tribunal of this state if:
(1) one party resides in another state; and
(2) the other party resides outside the United States.
Notes of Decisions
In Re the Welfare of S.R.S., 756 N.W.2d 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 28× “Minn.Stat. §§ 518C.611 and 518C.613 identify the three circumstances under which Minnesota courts can assume jurisdiction to modify a child-support order of another state.”
Marriage of Porro v. Porro, 675 N.W.2d 82 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 14× “1 and 3,” which provide for the establishment of an expedited child-support hearing process for, inter alia, modification of child-support orders in IV-D cases.”
Hennepin Cnty. v. Hill, 777 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “Each party’s argument has some support in the text of section 518C.611. Subsection (b), by itself, appears to say that a child-support order issued by a court of another state may be modified in the same manner as a child-support order of a Minnesota court.”
Kasdan v. Berney, 587 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 518C.611 (entitling Minnesota to jurisdiction over foreign support order if parties do not reside in issuing state, petitioner is nonresident seeking modification and respondent is subject to personal jurisdiction in Minnesota).”
Stone v. Stone, 636 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 518C.611(a)(l)(ii). Appellant, the petitioner, is a resident of Minnesota and thus cannot satisfy the requirements for modification of the South Dakota support order.”
Marriage of Schroeder v. Schroeder, 658 N.W.2d 909 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 518C.611(a)(l)(i)-(ii). Here, father-obligee resides in California and mother-obligor resides in Minnesota.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518C.611(a)(1) — 1 case
In Re the Welfare of S.R.S., 756 N.W.2d 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
“Minn.Stat. §§ 518C.611 and 518C.613 identify the three circumstances under which Minnesota courts can assume jurisdiction to modify a child-support order of another state.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518C.611(a)(1)(ii) — 1 case
In Re the Welfare of S.R.S., 756 N.W.2d 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
“Minn.Stat. §§ 518C.611 and 518C.613 identify the three circumstances under which Minnesota courts can assume jurisdiction to modify a child-support order of another state.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518C.611(a)(2) — 2 cases
In Re the Welfare of S.R.S., 756 N.W.2d 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
“Minn.Stat. §§ 518C.611 and 518C.613 identify the three circumstances under which Minnesota courts can assume jurisdiction to modify a child-support order of another state.”
Marriage of Porro v. Porro, 675 N.W.2d 82 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
“1 and 3,” which provide for the establishment of an expedited child-support hearing process for, inter alia, modification of child-support orders in IV-D cases.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518C.611(a)(l) — 2 cases
Marriage of Porro v. Porro, 675 N.W.2d 82 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
“1 and 3,” which provide for the establishment of an expedited child-support hearing process for, inter alia, modification of child-support orders in IV-D cases.”
In Re the Welfare of S.R.S., 756 N.W.2d 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
“Minn.Stat. §§ 518C.611 and 518C.613 identify the three circumstances under which Minnesota courts can assume jurisdiction to modify a child-support order of another state.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518C.611(a)(l)(i) — 1 case
Marriage of Schroeder v. Schroeder, 658 N.W.2d 909 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
“Minn.Stat. § 518C.611(a)(l)(i)-(ii). Here, father-obligee resides in California and mother-obligor resides in Minnesota.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518C.611(a)(l)(ii) — 3 cases
In Re the Welfare of S.R.S., 756 N.W.2d 123 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
“Minn.Stat. §§ 518C.611 and 518C.613 identify the three circumstances under which Minnesota courts can assume jurisdiction to modify a child-support order of another state.”
Stone v. Stone, 636 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
“Minn.Stat. § 518C.611(a)(l)(ii). Appellant, the petitioner, is a resident of Minnesota and thus cannot satisfy the requirements for modification of the South Dakota support order.”
Marriage of Porro v. Porro, 675 N.W.2d 82 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
“1 and 3,” which provide for the establishment of an expedited child-support hearing process for, inter alia, modification of child-support orders in IV-D cases.”
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.