NRS
130.207 Recognition of controlling child-support order; determination of
which order controls; request for determination; issuance of new controlling
order.
1. If a proceeding is brought under this
chapter and only one tribunal has issued a child-support order, the order of
that tribunal controls and must be so recognized.
2. If a proceeding is brought under this
chapter and two or more child-support orders have been issued by tribunals of
this State or another state or a foreign country with regard to the same
obligor and same child, a tribunal of this State having personal jurisdiction over
both the obligor and obligee who is a natural person shall apply the following
rules and by order shall determine which child-support order controls and must
be recognized:
(a) If only one of the tribunals would have
continuing and exclusive jurisdiction under this chapter, the order of that
tribunal controls.
(b) If more than one of the tribunals would have
continuing and exclusive jurisdiction under this chapter, an order issued by a
tribunal in the current home state of the child controls, or if an order has
not been issued in the current home state of the child, the order most recently
issued controls.
(c) If none of the tribunals would have
continuing and exclusive jurisdiction under this chapter, the tribunal of this
State shall issue a child-support order which controls.
3. If two or more child-support orders
have been issued for the same obligor and same child, upon request of a party
who is a natural person or that is a support-enforcement agency, a tribunal of
this State having personal jurisdiction over both the obligor and the obligee
who is a natural person shall determine which order controls under subsection
2. The request may be filed with a registration for enforcement or registration
for modification pursuant to NRS 130.601
to 130.713, inclusive, or may be filed
as a separate proceeding.
4. A request to determine which is the
controlling order must be accompanied by a copy of every child-support order in
effect and the applicable record of payments. The requesting party shall give
notice of the request to each party whose rights may be affected by the
determination.
5. The tribunal that issued the
controlling order under subsection 1, 2 or 3 has continuing jurisdiction to the
extent provided in NRS 130.205 or 130.206.
6. A tribunal of this State that
determines by order which is the controlling order under paragraph (a) or (b)
of subsection 2 or subsection 3 or that issues a new controlling order under
paragraph (c) of subsection 2 shall state in that order:
(a) The basis upon which the tribunal made its
determination;
(b) The amount of prospective support, if any;
and
(c) The total amount of consolidated arrears and
accrued interest, if any, under all of the orders after all payments made are
credited as provided by NRS 130.209.
7. Within 90 days after issuance of an
order determining which is the controlling order, the party obtaining the order
shall file a certified copy of it in each tribunal that issued or registered an
earlier order of child support. A party or support-enforcement agency obtaining
the order that fails to file a certified copy is subject to appropriate sanctions
by a tribunal in which the issue of failure to file arises. The failure to file
does not affect the validity or enforceability of the controlling order.
8. An order that has been determined to be
the controlling order, or a judgment for consolidated arrears of support and
interest, if any, made pursuant to this section must be recognized in
proceedings under this chapter.
(Added to NRS by 1997,
2315; A 2007,
122; 2009,
128; 2015,
895)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 2012–2017 · leading case:
Vaile v. Porsboll, 268 P.3d 1272 (Nev. 2012).
Vaile v. Porsboll, 268 P.3d 1272 (Nev. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See NRS 130.207 (addressing the recognition and determination of the controlling child support order); Unif.”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 14× “: In this appeal, we are asked to consider: (1) whether a Nevada child support order controlled over a Norway order, and (2) whether this court lacks jurisdiction over appellant's challenges to contempt findings We conclude that pursuant to NRS 130.207, the Nevada child support…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 7× “: In this appeal, we are asked to consider: (1) whether a Nevada child support order controlled over a Norway order, and (2) whether this court lacks jurisdiction over appellant's challenges to contempt findings We conclude that pursuant to NRS 130.207, the Nevada child support…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 7× “: In this appeal, we are asked to consider: (1) whether a Nevada child support order controlled over a Norway order, and (2) whether this court lacks jurisdiction over appellant's challenges to contempt findings We conclude that pursuant to NRS 130.207, the Nevada child support…”
Vaile v. Porsboll CA1/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “1274-1275; Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 130.207 (1) (2014); § 4911.”
Henderson, II v. Henderson (Nev. 2015).
“NRS 130.207(2) (providing that if two states have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction because at least one of the parties resides in each of the states, the order from the state in which the child resides controls).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 130.207(1) — 1 case
Vaile v. Porsboll, 268 P.3d 1272 (Nev. 2012).
“See NRS 130.207 (addressing the recognition and determination of the controlling child support order); Unif.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 130.207(2) — 4 cases
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“: In this appeal, we are asked to consider: (1) whether a Nevada child support order controlled over a Norway order, and (2) whether this court lacks jurisdiction over appellant's challenges to contempt findings We conclude that pursuant to NRS 130.207, the Nevada child support…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“: In this appeal, we are asked to consider: (1) whether a Nevada child support order controlled over a Norway order, and (2) whether this court lacks jurisdiction over appellant's challenges to contempt findings We conclude that pursuant to NRS 130.207, the Nevada child support…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“: In this appeal, we are asked to consider: (1) whether a Nevada child support order controlled over a Norway order, and (2) whether this court lacks jurisdiction over appellant's challenges to contempt findings We conclude that pursuant to NRS 130.207, the Nevada child support…”
Henderson, II v. Henderson (Nev. 2015).
“NRS 130.207(2) (providing that if two states have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction because at least one of the parties resides in each of the states, the order from the state in which the child resides controls).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 130.207(2)(a) — 3 cases
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“: In this appeal, we are asked to consider: (1) whether a Nevada child support order controlled over a Norway order, and (2) whether this court lacks jurisdiction over appellant's challenges to contempt findings We conclude that pursuant to NRS 130.207, the Nevada child support…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“: In this appeal, we are asked to consider: (1) whether a Nevada child support order controlled over a Norway order, and (2) whether this court lacks jurisdiction over appellant's challenges to contempt findings We conclude that pursuant to NRS 130.207, the Nevada child support…”
Vaile Vs. Vaile c/w 61415, 2017 NV 30 (Nev. 2017).
“: In this appeal, we are asked to consider: (1) whether a Nevada child support order controlled over a Norway order, and (2) whether this court lacks jurisdiction over appellant's challenges to contempt findings We conclude that pursuant to NRS 130.207, the Nevada child support…”
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.