A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection D, the law of the issuing state or foreign country governs (i) the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments under a registered support order; (ii) the computation and payment of arrearages and accrual of interest on the arrearages under the support order; and (iii) the existence and satisfaction of other obligations under the support order.
B. In a proceeding for arrears under a registered support order, the statute of limitations of the Commonwealth or of the issuing state or foreign country, whichever is longer, applies.
C. A responding tribunal of the Commonwealth shall apply the procedures and remedies of the Commonwealth to enforce current support and collect arrears and interest due on a support order of another state or a foreign country registered in the Commonwealth.
D. After a tribunal of the Commonwealth or another state determines which is the controlling order and issues an order consolidating arrears, if any, a tribunal of the Commonwealth shall prospectively apply the law of the state or foreign country issuing the controlling order, including its law on interest on arrears, on current and future support, and on consolidated arrears.
1994, c. 673; 2005, c. 754; 2015, c. 727.
Notes of Decisions
Joseph Moncrief v. Div. of Child Support Enf't, ex rel. Mary Ann Joyner, 732 S.E.2d 714 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “3 See Code § 20-88.69(A). New York provides the following with regard *735 to its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (a) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction…”
Robdau v. Commonwealth, 543 S.E.2d 602 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” UIFSA further recognizes the Commonwealth may be called upon to enforce another state’s order for support of an individual over the age of majority.”
Wine v. Brunty, 38 Va. Cir. 349 (Warren Cir. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 4× “No notice or opportunity for a hearing regarding this action was provided to the Plaintiff by the Department of Social Services of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the grounds that the Plaintiff had been given notice and an opportunity for Hearing by the State of Washington,…”
Barbara K. Parks, n/k/a B.M. Kundrat v. Carl Parks (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “" Code § 20-88.69(A). See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h)(2) ("In interpreting a child support order including the duration of current payments and other obligations of support, a court shall apply the law of the State of the court that issued the order.”
Evan A. Burkholder v. Cynthia A. Burkholder (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
“" Code § 20-88.69(A). 3 Section 504(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act provides that a court may grant a temporary or permanent maintenance award for either spouse .”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.69(A) — 5 cases
Joseph Moncrief v. Div. of Child Support Enf't, ex rel. Mary Ann Joyner, 732 S.E.2d 714 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“3 See Code § 20-88.69(A). New York provides the following with regard *735 to its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order: (a) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction…”
Robdau v. Commonwealth, 543 S.E.2d 602 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
“” UIFSA further recognizes the Commonwealth may be called upon to enforce another state’s order for support of an individual over the age of majority.”
Barbara K. Parks, n/k/a B.M. Kundrat v. Carl Parks (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
“" Code § 20-88.69(A). See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h)(2) ("In interpreting a child support order including the duration of current payments and other obligations of support, a court shall apply the law of the State of the court that issued the order.”
Evan A. Burkholder v. Cynthia A. Burkholder (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
“" Code § 20-88.69(A). 3 Section 504(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act provides that a court may grant a temporary or permanent maintenance award for either spouse .”
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.