(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of this section, the law of the issuing state or foreign country governs:
(1) the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments under a registered support order;
(2) the computation and payment of arrearages and accrual of interest on the arrearages under the support order; and
(3) the existence and satisfaction of other obligations under the support order.
(b) In a proceeding for arrearages under a registered support order, the statute of limitation of this state or of the issuing state or foreign country, whichever is longer, applies.
(c) A responding tribunal of this state shall apply the procedures and remedies of this state to enforce current support and collect arrearages and interest due on a support order of another state or a foreign country registered in this state.
(d) After a tribunal of this or another state determines which is the controlling order and issues an order consolidating arrearages, if any, a tribunal of this state shall prospectively apply the law of the state or foreign country issuing the controlling order, including its law on interest on arrearages, on current and future support, and on consolidated arrearages.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1999–2010 · leading case:
Groseth v. Groseth, 600 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 1999).
Groseth v. Groseth, 600 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 8× “) Section 42-739 (Reissue 1998), entitled “Choice of law,” in part mandates: “(a) The law of the issuing state governs the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments and other obligations of support and the payment of *531 arrearages under the order.”
Palagi v. Palagi, 627 N.W.2d 765 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Sharon asserts that the choice of which state’s law governs is resolved by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-739 (Reissue 1998), a part of UIFSA, which provides for recognition and enforcement of support decrees in states other than where the decree was issued.”
In Re McKain, 325 B.R. 842 (Bankr. D. Neb. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-739(a). However, if both of the parents reside in this state and the child no longer lives in the issuing state, then Nebraska courts have the jurisdiction to enforce and modify the issuing state’s order using Nebraska procedural and substantive law.”
Trogdon v. Trogdon, 780 N.W.2d 45 (Neb. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “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…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-739(a) — 2 cases
Groseth v. Groseth, 600 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 1999).
“) Section 42-739 (Reissue 1998), entitled “Choice of law,” in part mandates: “(a) The law of the issuing state governs the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments and other obligations of support and the payment of *531 arrearages under the order.”
In Re McKain, 325 B.R. 842 (Bankr. D. Neb. 2005).
“Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-739(a). However, if both of the parents reside in this state and the child no longer lives in the issuing state, then Nebraska courts have the jurisdiction to enforce and modify the issuing state’s order using Nebraska procedural and substantive law.”
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.