Opinion ID: 1932754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction over arrearages owed by stephen

Text: [¶ 11] Stephen also contends that the English courts have exclusive jurisdiction with regard to child support arrearage, and that the Magistrates Court had conclusively relieved him of all arrearage with respect to the support of Allyson. The Department contends that the Magistrates Court's order has no bearing on the order of the Maine court for the period prior to the Magistrates Court's order. [¶ 12] Under section 2903, a Maine court issuing a support order ... has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order . . . [a]s long as this State remains the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2903(1)(A) (1998). Stephen relies on a provision of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act that provides that Maine shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal of another state [2] that has issued a child support order pursuant to a law substantially similar to this chapter. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2903(4) (1998). A court may not exercise its continuing jurisdiction to modify the order if the order has been modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to a law substantially similar to this chapter. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2903(2). [¶ 13] Stephen misapprehends section 2903, subsection 4. Although that subsection requires that Maine recognize the jurisdiction of a court of another state, it does not mean that a Maine court loses its power to enforce a prior, valid order with regard to arrearage that accrued during the period when the order was valid. Section 2903(3)(A) very clearly provides for such authority. Even after an order has been modified by a tribunal of another state, the court that issued the original order may enforce the order as to amounts accruing before the modification. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2903(3)(A). Here, Julie, the obligee spouse under the prior award for the support of Allyson, see 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2903(1)(A), remained a resident of Maine. The arrearage sought by the Department is for a period of time before Stephen's obligation was modified by the English courts. Accordingly, the jurisdictional statute is satisfied, and the Superior Court has jurisdiction with respect to the arrearage owed by Stephen. [¶ 14] Finally, we find no error in the method used by the court to determine the arrearage, and Stephen has not demonstrated clear error in the court's factual conclusion that $7,662.61 is the amount of arrearage that Stephen owes. The entry is: Judgments affirmed.