Reveiws of Bennett v. DSS, Price v. Price, and Taylor v. Taylor.
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT -- URESA -- PERSONAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENT. The fact that in personam jurisdiction is necessary for support liability and enforcement is once again explained by the Court of Appeals in a DSS case from Prince William County. While Virginia's long-arm statute includes several ways in which in personam jurisdiction can be obtained over a spouse, none applied to the husband in this case. At the time of the divorce he resided in Massachusetts, and was served in Illinois. The decree incorporated an agreement that the parties executed in Maryland. When the wife went after him in North Carolina, she ended up signing a consent order for a certain amount of support and arrears. She then returned to Virginia and involved the Department of Social Services in an enforcement action on the original amount due under the terms of the original Virginia decree. The husband sought to register the North Carolina order in Virginia under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). The fact that the wife brought her action under URESA did not somehow create personal jurisdiction against the husband which had never existed before and thus enable the circuit judge to hold him in contempt, the Court of Appeals explains. Nor did any principle of law authorize the circuit court to refuse to allow registration by the husband of his North Carolina order. Actually, Virginia courts under URESA have no choice about this. The North Carolina order should have been given full faith and credit and recognized under the statutory requirements of URESA. The North Carolina court, which had personal jurisdiction over the parties, recognized the fact that the husband's income had vastly diminished while his expenses had risen, and it had a right to do so. The circuit court's order requiring the husband to pay more per month than his total gross income is reversed. Code §20-88.30:6 did not support the DSS's motion to vacate the registration of the new North Carolina support order which recognized the changed financial circumstances. Price v. Price, ___ Va. App. ___, 435 S.E.2d 652, 8 VLW 433 (11/30/93).
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT -- URESA -- STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. The statute that bars commencement of an action upon a foreign judgment more than 10 years after it was rendered, Code §8.01-252, does not apply to cases under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), the Court of Appeals held in Bennett v. DSS, ___ Va. App. ___, 422 S.E.2d 458 (1992). The provision of URESA, Code §20-88.30:6C permitting an obligor to assert any defenses available to him under state law in actions to enforce foreign money judgments do not apply to the statute of limitations defense, the Court holds. While it is true that each unpaid support payment automatically becomes an enforceable judgment, that is not true for statute of limitations purposes. When that question arises, the support order "merely establishes an ongoing, unliquidated spousal support obligation."
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT--URESA--CHOICE OF LAW. The Court of Appeals held in Taylor v. Taylor, _____ Va App _____, _____ SE2d _____, 7 VLW 68 (6/2/92) that when a foreign support order is registered under Code Section 2-88.30:5, the law of the first forum applies. Therefore, since the District of Columbia allows a defense of laches, the Virginia Court must allow it when enforcing the registered D.C. order.