ANA ALVAREZ SOOTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN SOOTIN, APPELLEE
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 District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court order transferring a post-divorce alimony modification case to Tennessee, holding that under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), the Florida court retained exclusive jurisdiction to modify spousal support orders even though both parties had relocated to Tennessee.
The Florida court must retain continuing exclusive jurisdiction over spousal support orders and may not transfer modification authority to another state. Under UIFSA, out-of-state courts may enforce but not modify Florida spousal support orders; any modification must be conducted by the Florida court that issued the original order.
[1] A Florida court with continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) cannot transfer the case to an…
[2] Under UIFSA, a Florida court retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order for its entire duration.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Under UIFSA, the Miami-Dade court has "continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order throughout the existence of the support obligation."”
Establishes the foundational principle that Florida retains exclusive jurisdiction to modify alimony orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAna Alvarez Sootin and John Sootin divorced in Miami-Dade County in 1998, with the husband ordered to pay permanent alimony. In 2008, the husband file…
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 Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Ana Alvarez Sootin, the former wife, appeals an order transferring a Florida post-final-judgment dissolution case to Tennessee. We reverse because we find no authority to support the transfer.
When the parties divorced in Miami-Dade County in 1998, the former husband was ordered to pay permanent alimony. In 2008, the former husband filed a petition in Miami-Dade circuit court to modify or terminate the alimony. The former wife had moved to Tennessee and was served there. However, the petition did not allege any specific predicate for long arm service. The former wife successfully moved to quash service as insufficient and dismiss the petition.1
After these proceedings, the former husband also moved to Tennessee. He then filed a petition in a Tennessee court to register and modify the Miami-Dade divorce judgment under Tennessee Code section 36-5-2601. The former wife moved to dismiss this petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She asserted that under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, sections 88.0011-.9011, Florida Statutes (2009) (“UIFSA”),2 the Miami-Dade court had exclusive jurisdiction to modify the support provisions of the judgment. The Tennessee court ordered the former husband to seek clarification from the Miami-Dade court as to whether it had retained jurisdiction over the matter.
As directed, the former husband filed a motion in Miami-Dade circuit court requesting that the court clarify its ruling in dismissing the 2008 motion to modify. During a telephone conference, the Miami-Dade judge decided to transfer the cause to Tennessee. The former wife appeals from this transfer order.
Despite the obvious logic of allowing the two former spouses now living in Tennessee to resolve their dispute there,3 we must reverse. Under UIFSA, the Miami-Dade court has “continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order throughout the existence of the support obligation.” § 88.2051(6) (emphasis added). The correct procedure under UIFSA is to register the spousal support judgment in another state for enforcement there. § 88.3011(2)(c). Even after registration, however, the foreign court must send the case back to the Florida court to consider any modification of the order. § 88.2061(2) (“A tribunal of this state having continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a support order may act as a responding tribunal to enforce or modify the order.”). Under UIFSA, out-of-state courts may enforce Florida spousal support orders but may not modify them. Spalding v. Spald-ing, 886 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Vinnik v. Vinnik, 831 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). See § 88.6031(3) (“Except as otherwise provided in this article, a tribunal of this state shall recognize and enforce, but may not modify, a registered order if the issuing tribunal had jurisdiction.”) (emphasis added).
*995On this basis, the transfer order must be reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Irena Ivko v. Igor GER, 233 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…on the record that the Pennsylvania court, which has jurisdiction over the Mother, may modify the Florida child support order and assume continuing jurisdiction pursuant to section 88.2051(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2017).3 See also Sootin v. Sootin, 41 So. 3d 993, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“[T]he correct procedure under UIFSA is to register the spousal support judgment in another state for enforcement there. Even after registration, however, the foreign court must send the case back to the Florida court to con…
-
Powell v. Powell (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Vinnik v. Vinnik, 831 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Spalding v. Spalding, 886 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)