Tag Archive for: foreign order

Defenses to Support Registration

An out of state order may be enforced in Pennsylvania following registration of the order here pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. 7605. Notice will be given to all interested parties regarding the proposed registration. If there is no response, the order will be registered. If a party contests the registration, a hearing will be scheduled. There are several defenses available to a party contesting registration of a support order under 23 Pa. C.S. 7607. First, the party can assert that the court that initially entered the order lacked personal jurisdiction. Second, the party can assert the order was obtained by fraud. Next, the party can establish the order has been vacated, suspended or subsequently modified by another order.

The fourth defense is that the order has been stayed pending appeal by the issuing court. Fifth, a defense under Pennsylvania law can be raised. Sixth, the party can establish full or partial payment has already been made. Finally, the party can assert the statute of limitations has already run barring enforcement on past due support amounts. If a party successfully proves one of the above-listed defenses, the court can decline to register the order. Additional options available to the court include continuing the matter for additional evidence and/or registration of the uncontested portion of the order. Once an order is registered, the court does not allow any further argument or defense so all defenses must be raised at the initial notice of registration.

Click here to read more about support.

by

Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decree, Court Order or Contract

A U.S. Court will recognize a foreign divorce decree under the doctrine of comity so long as the party has established domicile in the foreign country. As discussed in Hilkmann v. Hilkmann, [c]omity is a recognition which one nation extends within its own territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another. It is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience, and expediency. Although more than mere courtesy and accommodation, comity does not achieve the force of an imperative or obligation…Comity should be withheld only when its acceptance would be contrary or prejudicial to the interest of the nation called upon to give it effect. 2003 PA Super 25 (2005). A U.S. Court will invoke comity by its discretion and will usually look at two factors: whether the foreign court had jurisdiction, and whether fair procedures were used.

A U.S. Court will look to domicile as a basis for establishing jurisdiction. In Commonwealth v. Doughty, the court held “[i]t is an established and familiar principle that judicial power to grant a divorce is founded on domicile. In the absence of domicile by at least one of the parties to the action, the Court has no jurisdiction over the cause and its decree will consequently, not be endowed with extraterritorial effect.” 187 Pa. Super. 499 (1958). Accordingly, “[a]n absolute prerequisite to judicial recognition of an out-of-state divorce is that the plaintiff must have resided in the state or country for a minimum period of residency as determined by local authority and that the residency be accompanied by domiciliary intent, i.e., an intent to remain the foreign jurisdiction.” Sargent v. Sargent, 225 Pa. Super. 1 (1973). These principles extend beyond divorce and hold the same for other family law court orders as well as contracts.

Click here to read more about divorce in Bucks County.

by