Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 130.2055 (2026)

Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over spousal-support order

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 130.2055  Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over spousal-support order.

      1.  A tribunal of this State issuing a spousal-support order consistent with the law of this State has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to modify the spousal-support order throughout the existence of the support obligation.

      2.  A tribunal of this State may not modify a spousal-support order issued by a tribunal of another state or a foreign country having continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state or foreign country.

      3.  A tribunal of this State that has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal-support order may serve as:

      (a) An initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to enforce the spousal-support order issued in this State; or

      (b) A responding tribunal to enforce or modify its own spousal-support order.

      (Added to NRS by 2007, 118; A 2009, 128; 2015, 895)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2013–2014 · leading case: Midyett v. Midyett, 2013 Ark. App. 597 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013).
Midyett v. Midyett, 2013 Ark. App. 597 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). “Under both Arkansas and Nevada laws dealing with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), the tribunal in the state that issues a spousal-support order has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order throughout the existence of the support obligation.”
Gonzales-Alpizar v. Griffith, 2014 NV 2 (Nev. 2014). · cites it 2× “See NRS 130.2055(2). The only support for Gonzales-Alpizar's "substantially similar" argument is a comparison of the laws for establishing and modifying child support in Nevada and Costa Rica.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 130.2055(2) — 1 case
Gonzales-Alpizar v. Griffith, 2014 NV 2 (Nev. 2014). “See NRS 130.2055(2). The only support for Gonzales-Alpizar's "substantially similar" argument is a comparison of the laws for establishing and modifying child support in Nevada and Costa Rica.”
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.