A. A party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered support order or seeking to vacate the registration has the burden of proving one or more of the following defenses:
1. The issuing tribunal 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 the Commonwealth to the remedy sought;
6. Full or partial payment has been made;
7. The statute of limitations under § 20-88.69 precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages; or
8. The alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.
B. If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under subsection A, a tribunal may stay enforcement of a registered support order, continue the proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence, and issue other appropriate orders. An uncontested portion of the registered support order may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of the Commonwealth.
C. If the contesting party does not establish a defense under subsection A to the validity or enforcement of a registered support order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order.
1994, c. 673; 2005, c. 754; 2015, c. 727.
Notes of Decisions
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Diaz, 647 F.3d 1073 (11th Cir. 2011).
“6071 (l)(f) and in Virginia at Va.Code Ann. § 20-88.72(A)(6)). Moreover, if the Florida DOR and Virginia DSS actually attempted to collect part of the child-support debt that had already been paid during bankruptcy, legal proceedings outside of the Bankruptcy Code may provide…”
In Re Request for Jud. Assistance, 748 F. Supp. 2d 522 (E.D. Va. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Under Section 607 of UIFSA ( Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.72 ), lack of personal jurisdiction by the foreign court is grounds for vacating or staying enforcement of the foreign support order.”
Walter X. Slawski v. CW, DSS, DCSE, ex rel. Slawski (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 15× “In his appeal, Slawski raises ten issues: (1) whether under Code § 20-88.72 the court can register the decree and erred in so doing when there is an adequate remedy at law; * Pursuant to Code § 17.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.72(A) — 1 case
Walter X. Slawski v. CW, DSS, DCSE, ex rel. Slawski (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
“In his appeal, Slawski raises ten issues: (1) whether under Code § 20-88.72 the court can register the decree and erred in so doing when there is an adequate remedy at law; * Pursuant to Code § 17.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.72(A)(3) — 1 case
Walter X. Slawski v. CW, DSS, DCSE, ex rel. Slawski (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
“In his appeal, Slawski raises ten issues: (1) whether under Code § 20-88.72 the court can register the decree and erred in so doing when there is an adequate remedy at law; * Pursuant to Code § 17.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.72(A)(5) — 1 case
Walter X. Slawski v. CW, DSS, DCSE, ex rel. Slawski (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
“In his appeal, Slawski raises ten issues: (1) whether under Code § 20-88.72 the court can register the decree and erred in so doing when there is an adequate remedy at law; * Pursuant to Code § 17.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.72(A)(6) — 2 cases
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Diaz, 647 F.3d 1073 (11th Cir. 2011).
“6071 (l)(f) and in Virginia at Va.Code Ann. § 20-88.72(A)(6)). Moreover, if the Florida DOR and Virginia DSS actually attempted to collect part of the child-support debt that had already been paid during bankruptcy, legal proceedings outside of the Bankruptcy Code may provide…”
Walter X. Slawski v. CW, DSS, DCSE, ex rel. Slawski (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
“In his appeal, Slawski raises ten issues: (1) whether under Code § 20-88.72 the court can register the decree and erred in so doing when there is an adequate remedy at law; * Pursuant to Code § 17.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.72(A)(7) — 1 case
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.