Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act

Last updated December 06, 2021

The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), passed in 1950, concerns interstate cooperation in the collection of spousal and child support.^[1] The law establishes procedures for enforcement in cases in which the person owing alimony or child support is in one state and the person to whom the support is owed is in another state (hence the word "reciprocal").

The original Act was first passed in 1950 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.^[1] It was amended in 1952 and again in 1958.^[2] The most recent amendments were enacted in 1968 and included improved machinery for finding the person owing support; guidelines for the conduct of the trial in the responding state; guidelines for cases where paternity is in question or where there has been interference with visitation rights; and simplified procedures for registering and enforcing out-of-state support orders.^[2] Such acts, substantially similar in content, have been passed in all 50 states.

Full faith and credit applicability

Child support is established in proceedings in which the court has personal jurisdiction over both parties, i.e. the mother and father. For post-divorce obligations, this may be the inter parte divorce proceeding itself, where the issues implicate res judicata and are entitled to full faith and credit. Under Article 4 of the United States Constitution, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."^[3] Courts therefore may use the full-faith-and-credit article to enforce final judgments that have been entered by the courts of another state.

When a judgment is not final, there is a problem of giving full faith and credit to that judgment in another state. The Second Restatement states, under the topic of Defenses to Recognition and Enforcement, that a judgment rendered in one state need not be recognized or enforced in another state insofar as the judgment remains subject to modification in the state of rendition either as to sums that have accrued and are unpaid or as to sums that will accrue in the future.^[4] A court is free to recognize or enforce a judgment that remains subject to modification under the local law of the state of rendition. Child support orders are modifiable based on changing circumstances, and are therefore not final.

Under full faith and credit, the local law of the state of rendition will be applied to determine whether the judgment is modifiable and, if so, in what respects. This law will determine whether the judgment is modifiable with respect to past due installments and with respect to future installments. As between states, full faith and credit requires application of the local law of the state of rendition to determine whether the judgment is modifiable and, if so, in what respects.

Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)

In 1910, the National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act. The act made it a punishable offense for a spouse to desert, willfully neglect, or refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of the other spouse in destitute or necessitous circumstances, or for a parent to fail in the same duty to their child less than 16 years of age. The 1910 act sought to improve the enforcement of the duties of support, but it did not take into account husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers who fled the original jurisdiction. With the increasing mobility of the population, welfare departments had to support the destitute families because the extradition process was inefficient and often unsuccessful.

In 1950, The National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws published the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). The Commission stated that, "The purposes of this act are to improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support and to make uniform the law with respect thereto."^[5] URESA contained both civil and criminal provisions designed to enforce child support laws that were already passed by state legislatures.^[1] The criminal enforcement section focused on making extradition easier, the procedures for which relied upon the obligee state demanding that the obligor state extradite the obligor to the obligee state, or for the obligor to submit himself/herself to the jurisdiction of the obligee state.^[1] The civil enforcement section was much more detailed, imposing duties on both the responding and initiating states.^[1] These provisions relied upon a system where the obligee would initiate proceedings in his/her state, then the initiating state would determine if the obligor had a duty of support. If the initiating court held that the obligor had a duty of support, the initiating court would forward the case to the obligor's state. The responding state, which would have personal jurisdiction over the obligor, would provide notice and a hearing for obligor. After this hearing, the responding court would enforce the support order. By 1955, all 48 states and several U.S. territories had adopted either URESA or the Uniform Support of Dependents Law, making recovery for nonsupport much easier and routine.^[1]

Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA)

In 1968, the Commission on Uniform State Laws again amended URESA, which later became known as the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA).^[2] The amendments involved two important changes to URESA. First, the amendments sought to correct a problem created by URESA where the responding court would only have evidence from the obligor and not have any evidence from the initiating state or the obligee. The responding court with one-sided representation would hold for the obligor; thus, the result would not serve the purpose of URESA. The Commission's solution was to amend URESA so that the initiating state and the obligee would provide evidence to be sent to the responding court along with the case file. The initiating court presented to the responding court evidence of the obligee's case, so the responding court would have both representations of the case. Second, the Commission provided a second method for obtaining redress under the category of civil enforcement. The new method provided for the obligee to register the foreign support order in a court of the obligor's state, and present that case directly to the foreign court.

RURESA provided new protection for obligees against noncompliant obligors; however, RURESA created the problem of multiple support orders. Since every state could enforce and modify a support order, the possibility of having multiple support orders arose. If the obligor moved from State A to State B to State C to State D, and if the obligee continually registered and had the order modified, then there would be four separate and independent support orders. RURESA provided that the state courts could modify the original order so long as the court applied its own procedural law and the substantive law of the original state, unless that application of substantive law contravened its own public policy. The Commission intended to correct the problem of inconsistent multiple orders by only allowing the support orders to be modified based upon a single state's law. In theory, states A, B and C could only modify a support order based upon the original state's law; thus, all the support orders should be identical. In practice, however, this rule created ambiguities concerning whether child support guidelines are procedural or substantive, and if substantive, whether application of that substantive law contravenes some public policy. Therefore, it became possible that there could be multiple orders based upon different states' child support guidelines.

URESA and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

URESA provided additional procedures for the deserted spouse. applying both to the enforcement of support orders and to original claims for support. Its procedures enabled the claimant to file in the local forum, which forwarded the complaint to the state where the defendant was present. The court of the second state then exercised personal jurisdiction over the defendant and entered the appropriate support order. Particularly important was the act's choice-of-law provision stating that the support obligation was to be determined according to the law of the state where the defendant was present at and during the time for which support is claimed.

In 1992, the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to update and replace URESA.^[1] Since 1992, UIFSA has been enacted by all 50 states; while some states completely repealed URESA, some states retained aspects of URESA, and some states retained the entirety of URESA.

Related Research Articles

Jurisdiction is the legal term for the authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. Colloquially it is used to refer to the geographical area (situs: location of the issue. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels.

Equity is a particular body of law that was developed in the English Court of Chancery. It is not a synonym for 'general fairness' or 'natural justice'. It exists in domestic law, both in civil law and in common law systems, and in international law. The tradition of equity begins in antiquity with the writings of Aristotle (epieikeia) and with Roman law (aequitas). Later, in civil law systems, equity was integrated in the legal rules, while in common law systems it became an independent body of law.

Alimony is a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to his or her spouse before or after marital separation or divorce. The obligation arises from the divorce law or family law of each country. In most jurisdictions, it is distinct from child support, where, after divorce, one parent is required to contribute to the support of his or her children by paying money to the child's other parent or guardian.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

In law, a judgment, also spelled judgement, is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.

Child support is an ongoing, periodic payment made by a parent for the financial benefit of a child following the end of a marriage or other similar relationship. Child maintenance is paid directly or indirectly by an obligor to an obligee for the care and support of children of a relationship that has been terminated, or in some cases never existed. Often the obligor is a non-custodial parent. The obligee is typically a custodial parent, a caregiver, a guardian, or the state.

A prenuptial agreement, antenuptial agreement, or premarital agreement, is a written contract entered into by a couple prior to marriage or a civil union that enables them to select and control many of the legal rights they acquire upon marrying, and what happens when their marriage eventually ends by death or divorce. Couples enter into a written prenuptial agreement to supersede many of the default marital laws that would otherwise apply in the event of divorce, such as the laws that govern the division of property, retirement benefits, savings, and the right to seek alimony with agreed-upon terms that provide certainty and clarify their marital rights. A premarital agreement may also contain waivers of a surviving spouse's right to claim an elective share of the estate of the deceased spouse.

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judges and lawyers agree on the meaning of the clause with respect to the recognition of judgments rendered by one state in the courts of another. Barring exceptional circumstances, one state must enforce a judgment by a court in another, unless that court lacked jurisdiction, even if the enforcing court otherwise disagrees with the result. At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has a minimal impact on a court's choice of law decision provided that no state’s sovereignty is infringed, although this Clause of the Constitution was once interpreted to have greater impact.

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts did not have the judicial power to create general federal common law when hearing state law claims under diversity jurisdiction. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of what remains the modern law of diversity jurisdiction as it applies to United States federal courts.

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) is one of the uniform acts drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in the United States. First developed in 1992 the NCCUSL revised the act in 1996 and again in 2001 with additional amendments in 2008. The act limits the jurisdiction that can properly establish and modify child support orders and addresses the enforcement of child support obligations within the United States. In 1996, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which required that states adopt UIFSA by January 1, 1998 or face loss of federal funding for child support enforcement. Every U.S. state has adopted either the 1996 or a later version of UIFSA.

In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.

In modern society, the role of marriage and its termination through divorce have become political issues. As people live increasingly mobile lives, the conflict of laws and its choice of law rules are highly relevant to determine:

In family law, contact, visitation and access are synonym terms that denotes the time that a child spends with the noncustodial parent, according to an agreed or court specified parenting schedule. The visitation term is not used in a shared parenting arrangement where the mother and father have joint physical custody.

In the United States, child support is the ongoing obligation for a periodic payment made directly or indirectly by an "obligor" to an "obligee" for the financial care and support of children of a relationship or a marriage. The laws governing this kind of obligation vary dramatically state-by-state and tribe-by-tribe among Native Americans. Each individual state and federally recognized tribe is responsible for developing its own guidelines for determining child support.

In England and Wales, family proceedings court was the name given to a magistrates' court when members of the court's family panel sat to hear a family case. It was a court of first instance in England and Wales that dealt with family matters. Cases were either heard in front of a bench of lay magistrates or a district judge.

This article includes information about the child support policies of several countries.

International litigation, sometimes called transnational litigation, is the practice of litigation in connection with disputes among businesses or individuals residing or based in different countries.

Brussels II Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, which came into force on 1 March 2001, sets out a system for the allocation of jurisdiction and the reciprocal enforcement of judgments between European Union Member States and was modelled on the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. It was intended to regulate domains that were excluded from the Brussels Convention and Brussels I. The Brussels II Regulation deals with conflict of law issues in family law between member states; in particular those related to divorce and child custody. The Regulation seeks to facilitate free movement of divorce and related judgments between Member States.

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State was a case concerning the extent of state immunity before the International Court of Justice. The case was brought by Germany after various decisions by Italian courts to ignore the state immunity of Germany when confronted with claims against Germany by victims of Nazi-era war crimes. The court found that Italy was wrong to ignore German immunity, and found that Italy was obligated to render the decisions of its courts against Germany without effect.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Katz, Elizabeth D. (2019-09-01). "Criminal Law in a Civil Guise: The Evolution of Family Courts and Support Laws". Rochester, NY. SSRN 3168243 .Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
1 2 3 FOX, WILLIAM F. (1978). "The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act". Family Law Quarterly. 12 (2): 113–145. ISSN 0014-729X. JSTOR 25739212.
↑ "Article IV". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2021-10-30.
↑ Sonstige, American Law Institute. Restatement of the law, second. American Law Inst. Publ. OCLC 1070912698.
↑ Congress, United States (1955). Reports and Documents.