 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Knowlton v. Knowlton3/4/2005
it the support order issued) no longer resided in this state. Local residence of at least one of that triad is necessary to establish the nexus for UIFSA subject matter jurisdiction.
Appellant also argues that Appellee consented to the jurisdiction of the court. Parties may not confer subject matter jurisdiction by consent. Barrett v. Barrett, 1994 OK 92, 878 P.2d 1051, 1054. Nor does Appellee's consent comply with §601-205(A)(2). We read §205(A)(1) to mean that jurisdiction is lost if all parties have permanently moved from the state issuing the original order. However, if at least one of the parties continues to reside in the issuing state, §205(A)(2) allows the tribunal of another state to assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction if all parties file written consents with the court in the issuing state. Section 205(A)(2) is not applicable in this case because none of the parties reside in Oklahoma.
Appellant's Motion to Submit Appellate Briefs is denied.
The District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Wife's Motion to Modify Child Support . The order dismissing the motion is AFFIRMED.
JOPLIN, P.J., and HANSEN, J., concur.
Page 1 2 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|