NRS
130.205 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of tribunal that has issued
child-support order; becoming initiating tribunal to request modification of
child-support order.
1. A tribunal of this State that has
issued a child-support order consistent with the law of this State has and
shall exercise continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify its
child-support order if the order is the controlling order and:
(a) At the time of the filing of a request for
modification, this State is the residence of the obligor, the obligee who is a
natural person or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or
(b) Even if this State is not the residence of
the obligor, the obligee who is a natural person or the child for whose benefit
the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court
that the tribunal of this State may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify
its order.
2. A tribunal of this State that has
issued a child-support order consistent with the law of this State may not
exercise continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child-support
order if:
(a) All of the parties who are natural persons
file consent in a record with the tribunal of this State that a tribunal of
another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is a
natural person or that is located in the state of residence of the child may
modify the order and assume continuing and exclusive jurisdiction; or
(b) Its order is not the controlling order.
3. If a tribunal of another state has
issued a child-support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support
Act or a law substantially similar to that Act which modifies a child-support
order of a tribunal of this State, tribunals of this State shall recognize the
continuing and exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.
4. A tribunal of this State that lacks
continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child-support order may serve
as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a
support order issued in that state.
5. A temporary support order issued ex
parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create
continuing and exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.
(Added to NRS by 1997,
2314; A 2007,
120)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1987–2017 · leading case:
Vaile v. Porsboll, 268 P.3d 1272 (Nev. 2012).
Vaile v. Porsboll, 268 P.3d 1272 (Nev. 2012).
· cites it 5× “NRS 130.205(1). Thus, we must determine whether the district court impermissibly modified the child support obligation under UIFSA when it imposed a sum certain payment of $1,300 per month as Vaile’s child support obligation, or if that determination was a clarification of the…”
Taylor v. Vilcheck, 745 P.2d 702 (Nev. 1987).
· cites it 2× “210(1) provides in pertinent part that “the affidavit of the obligee is admissible into evidence subject to challenges using the procedure proscribed in NRS 130.205.” NRS 130.205, in turn, provides: If the obligee is not present at the hearing and the obligor denies owing the…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 4× “NRS 130.205(1) requires three things in order for Nevada to have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (1) a court in this state issued the order consistent with the laws of this state; (2) the order is the controlling order; and (3) either the…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “205(1) requires three things in order for Nevada to have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (1) a court in this state issued the order consistent with the laws of this state; (2) the order is the controlling order; and (3) either the state is…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “205(1) requires three things in order for Nevada to have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (1) a court in this state issued the order consistent with the laws of this state; (2) the order is the controlling order; and (3) either the state is…”
Vaile v. Porsboll CA1/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“(See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 130.205 (1)(a), (b) (2014); §§ 4909, 4960; In re Marriage of Haugh (2014) 225 Cal.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 130.205(1) — 4 cases
Vaile v. Porsboll, 268 P.3d 1272 (Nev. 2012).
“NRS 130.205(1). Thus, we must determine whether the district court impermissibly modified the child support obligation under UIFSA when it imposed a sum certain payment of $1,300 per month as Vaile’s child support obligation, or if that determination was a clarification of the…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“NRS 130.205(1) requires three things in order for Nevada to have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (1) a court in this state issued the order consistent with the laws of this state; (2) the order is the controlling order; and (3) either the…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“205(1) requires three things in order for Nevada to have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (1) a court in this state issued the order consistent with the laws of this state; (2) the order is the controlling order; and (3) either the state is…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“205(1) requires three things in order for Nevada to have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (1) a court in this state issued the order consistent with the laws of this state; (2) the order is the controlling order; and (3) either the state is…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 130.205(1)(b) — 3 cases
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“NRS 130.205(1) requires three things in order for Nevada to have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (1) a court in this state issued the order consistent with the laws of this state; (2) the order is the controlling order; and (3) either the…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“205(1) requires three things in order for Nevada to have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (1) a court in this state issued the order consistent with the laws of this state; (2) the order is the controlling order; and (3) either the state is…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“205(1) requires three things in order for Nevada to have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (1) a court in this state issued the order consistent with the laws of this state; (2) the order is the controlling order; and (3) either the state is…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 130.205(l)(a) — 1 case
Vaile v. Porsboll, 268 P.3d 1272 (Nev. 2012).
“NRS 130.205(1). Thus, we must determine whether the district court impermissibly modified the child support obligation under UIFSA when it imposed a sum certain payment of $1,300 per month as Vaile’s child support obligation, or if that determination was a clarification of the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 130.205(l)(b) — 1 case
Vaile v. Porsboll, 268 P.3d 1272 (Nev. 2012).
“NRS 130.205(1). Thus, we must determine whether the district court impermissibly modified the child support obligation under UIFSA when it imposed a sum certain payment of $1,300 per month as Vaile’s child support obligation, or if that determination was a clarification of the…”
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.