Opinion ID: 1698391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the court acquire jurisdiction to set aside any child support arrears from a prior divorce action pursuant to uresa?

Text: Because the URESA action was filed in the State of Arkansas to collect arrearage from a 1976 divorce action, the DHS and Adams submit that the Mississippi chancery court did not acquire jurisdiction to set aside the arrearage. This Court has stated that proceedings under URESA do not supercede the original order of support. Hailey v. Holden, 457 So.2d 947, 952 (Miss. 1984) (citing Howard v. Howard, 191 So.2d 528 (Miss. 1966)). As a general rule, an order still subject to modification in the state that rendered it may be modified by another state. [citations omitted] ... Arrearages in child support payments, however, are not subject to modification. Hailey, 457 So.2d at 951. As URESA is a remedy in the courts of sister states for the enforcement of support orders, the original order of support is not affected by the orders from another state under URESA. Id. at 952. Therefore, although the chancery court did have jurisdiction to hear this case, it had neither the authority, nor the jurisdiction pursuant to URESA to modify the arrearage Rains owed for back child support.