STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BY AND ON BEHALF OF LINDA HYLTON, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLARD HYLTON, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Department of Revenue sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial court from ruling on a modification motion regarding a Georgia child support order registered in Florida under URESA. The court granted the writ, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the Georgia order because federal law (the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act) preempts Florida law in this context.
The trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify the Georgia child support order. The federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act preempts Florida law regarding modification of registered out-of-state child support orders, and neither of the statutory criteria for modification under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738B(e) is satisfied in this case.
[1] A Florida court lacks jurisdiction to modify a child support order issued by another state when that state retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under the Full Faith…
[2] The Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act preempts state law regarding the modification of out-of-state child support orders registered under the Revised Uni…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Prohibition is properly granted to prevent the trial court from exceeding its jurisdiction.”
Establishes the legal standard for granting a writ of prohibition in this context.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Georgia court entered a final judgment dissolving the Hyltons' marriage and ordering the father to pay child support. The mother filed a URESA petit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, Judge.
This is a petition for writ of prohibition filed by the Florida Department of Revenue on behalf of Linda Hylton, seeking to prevent the trial court from ruling on Willard Hylton’s motion to modify a Georgia child support order which had been registered in Florida under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), Chapter 88, Florida Statutes (1995). We grant the writ, because the trial court is without jurisdiction to modify the Georgia child support order. A Georgia court entered a final judgment dissolving the Hyltons’ marriage and ordering the father to pay child support. The mother filed a URESA petition to have the child support order established and enforced in Florida where the father now resides.
The trial court granted registration and enforcement, and directed the father to pay the Georgia-ordered child support.
In the Florida trial court, the father later moved to downwardly modify his child support obligation. The mother moved to strike the motion. After the trial court denied the motion to strike, the mother filed this petition for writ of prohibition.
Prohibition is properly granted to prevent the trial court from exceeding its jurisdiction. See English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla.1977). The Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738B (1994), has preempted Florida law with respect to modification of child support orders in URESA enforcement actions. See State, Dept. of Revenue ex rel. Jorda v. Fleet, 679 So. 2d 326, 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State, Dep’t of Revenue on Behalf of Skladanuk v. Skladanuk, 683 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Section 1738B(e) of the act sets forth the criteria which must be met before the trial court would be permitted to modify the Georgia final judgment. See Kramer v. Kramer, 698 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Neither of the criteria are satisfied in this case. Georgia has “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the child support order” because it remains the children’s and mother’s state of residence. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738B(e)(2)(A).
The mother has not filed “written consent” to the Florida court making a modification and assuming continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the child support issue. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738B(e)(2)(B).
The mother’s filing of a URESA action to collect child support payments does not amount to a “written consent” under subsection (e)(2)(B).
See Bednarsh v. Bednarsh, 282 N.J.Super. 482, 660 A. 2d 575 (Ch. Div.1995).
For these reasons, the trial court is without authority to modify the Georgia child support order. The father contends that the trial court’s ruling was proper under Gonzales v. Trudeau, 657 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
However, that case was decided -without reference to the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act. In Kramer, this court followed Skladanuk and Jorda in holding that the Act preempted Florida law with respect to the modification of out-of-state child support orders.
We grant the writ of prohibition and remand this case to the trial court with directions to grant petitioner’s motion to strike the father’s motion for modification.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…risdiction over the order, despite the parties’ state of residence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(e)(2)(A) & (B);2 § 88.2051, Fla. Stat. (2007);3 see also Gropper v. Gropper, 766 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); State, Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Hylton v. Hylton, 703 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Kramer v. Kramer, 698 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State, Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Sklada [*211] nuk v. Skladanuk, 683 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); State, Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Jorda v. Fleet, 679 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Cascella, 751 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ment of Human Resources v. Deason, 238 Ga.App. 853, 520 S.E. 2d 712 (1999); Kramer v. Kramer, 698 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); DCSE-Jennings v. DeBussy, 707 A. 2d 44 (Del.Fam.Ct. 1997); State, Department of Revenue on Behalf of Hylton, v. Hylton, 703 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State, Department of Revenue on Behalf of Skladanuk v. Skladanuk, 683 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); State, Department of Revenue on Behalf of Jorda v. Fleet, 679 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Isabel M. v. Thomas M., 164 Misc.…
-
Gropper v. Gropper, 766 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…parties filed a [*248] written consent in Rhode Island allowing the courts of Florida to modify the judgment and assume continuing exclusive jurisdiction over it. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738B; State, Dep’t of Revenue By and On Behalf of Hylton v. Hylton, 703 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Kramer v. Kramer, 698 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State, Dep’t of Revenue By and On Behalf of Jorda v. Fleet, 679 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court is directed to grant the former husband’s motion t…
Authorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Erwin Fleet, 679 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Kramer v. Kramer, 698 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Moye v. State, 683 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- State v. Bart Skladanuk, 683 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Gonzales v. Anita C. (Gonzales) Trudeau, 657 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)