LLOYD J. CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSEMARY CLARK, 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.
A Florida court enforced a child support order initiated in Colorado under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. The appellant challenged the order because the Colorado court's determination of need was presented via authenticated transcript rather than live testimony before the Florida court.
The order was properly entered and is valid. An authenticated transcript of Colorado proceedings effectively invokes the jurisdiction of the Florida court, and the question of need as determined in the initiating state is acceptable as prima facie correct. A respondent who is duly served but fails to answer or testify in rebuttal cannot challenge the order on the ground that the petitioner did not testify in person before the Florida court.
“Such Acts are, of course, designed to provide expedient and inexpensive "interstate" procedures for enforcing support of the family.”
Establishes the purpose and policy underlying the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Acts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosemary Clark filed a petition in Colorado against her former husband Lloyd Clark, who resided in Florida, seeking child support. A Colorado court fo…
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 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Act cases and more on FLexlaw
Proceedings were instituted in Colorado Springs, El Paso County, Colorado, under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of that state by Rosemary Clark against her former husband, appellant Lloyd J. Clark of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. The Colorado Court heard the sworn complaint and determined that the two minor children of the petitioner and the respondent were in need of $150.00 per month for their maintenance and support. The petition alleged on information and belief that the respondent was earning between $500.00 and $600.00 per month.
The cause came on for hearing before the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Orange County, Florida, after the respondent had been summoned to show cause why he should not be required to make regular payments for the support of the named children. On final hearing the respondent, although represented by counsel, offered no testimony. The court found “in the testimony offered by the petitioner” that the need for the minor children was $150.00 a month which the respondent was ordered to pay.
The respondent thereafter filed a motion reciting that petitioner Rosemary Clark was not present at any time before the Florida court, and moved the court to amend the order so as to reflect the nature of the “testimony” on which the order was entered. The state attorney, on behalf of the petitioner, filed a reply averring that there was no merit to the motion. The court denied the motion and the respondent appealed, protesting the validity of the order absent testimony eo nomine on the part of the petitioner.
The chancellor properly took notice of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of the State of Colorado1 as *197contemplated by the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of the State of Florida.2 Such Acts are, of course, designed to provide expedient and inexpensive “interstate” procedures for enforcing support of the family.
In the instant case the authenticated transcript of the Colorado proceedings, duly presented to the Florida court, effectively invoked the active jurisdiction of the latter court. The question of need as determined in the initiating state is acceptable here as prima facie correct. The respondent-appellant, having been duly served but consciously failing to answer or testify in rebuttal, cannot question the order appealed on the ground that the petitioner did not testify in person or by deposition.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Helmick v. Helmick, 436 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…rties thereto in any other. proceeding. . See, e.g., Wright v. Wright, 411 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). . See, e.g., Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Clark v. Clark, 139 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). . Clark v. Clark, 139 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). . See, e.g., Jackson v. Hall, 97 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1957); Clarke v. Blackburn, 151 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). . See, e.g., Rohrer v. Kane, 609 P. 2d 1121 (Colo.App., Div. 1,…1 / 2
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Orneta M. Quigley v. Quigley, 463 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1985)…f Florida’s URESA. Chapter 88 had been construed to include both alimony and child support pri- or to enactment of the 1979 amendments. Thompson v. Thompson, 93 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1957); Cox v. State, 180 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Clark v. Clark, 139 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); 1977 Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 077-77 (July 26,1977). The legislature is presumed to be cognizant of the judicial construction of a statute when contemplating making changes in the statute, Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1981)…
-
State v. Quigley, 446 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…tion 88.012 was inserted into the URE-SA by the revisions of 1979, the URESA was held to apply to child support and alimony. See Thompson v. Thompson, 93 So. 2d 90, 93 (Fla.1957); Cox v. State, 180 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Clark v. Clark, 139 So. 2d 195, 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); 1977 Op.Att’y Gen. Fla. 077-77 (July 26, 1977). The legislature is presumed to be cognizant of the judicial construction of a statute when contemplating making changes in the statute. See Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So. 2d 409,…