14-5-604. Choice of law.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of this section, the law of the issuing state governs:

(1) The nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments under a registered support order;

(2) The computation and payment of arrearages and accrual of interest on the arrearages under the support order; and

(3) The existence and satisfaction of other obligations under the support order.

(b) In a proceeding for arrearages under a registered support order, the statute of limitation of this state or of the issuing state, whichever is longer, applies.

(c) A responding tribunal of this state shall apply the procedures and remedies of this state to enforce current support and to collect arrearages and interest due on a support order of another state registered in this state.

(d) After a tribunal of this or another state determines which is the controlling order and issues an order consolidating arrearages, if any, a tribunal of this state shall prospectively apply the law of the state issuing the controlling order, including its law on interest on arrearages, on current and future support, and on consolidated arrearages.

Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1597, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2003: Entire section amended, p. 1258, § 34, effective July 1, 2004.

Editor's note: This section was contained in an article that was repealed and reenacted in 1993. Provisions of this section, as it existed in 1993, are similar to those contained in 14-5-108 as said section existed in 1992, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this article.

C.J.S. See 41 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, § 6.

Annotator's note: Since § 14-5-604 is similar to § 14-5-108 as it existed prior to the 1993 repeal and reenactment of this article and to repealed § 43-2-7, C.R.S. 1963, relevant cases construing this provision have been included in this section.

Specific adoption of the choice of law provision under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act by both Colorado and Texas overrides application of the general borrowing limitations statute set forth in § 13-80-110. In re Morris, 32 P.3d 625 (Colo. App. 2001).

The duty of support under this article is that imposed under the laws of the state where the obligor parent is or was present for the period during which support is sought. Ross v. Thomas, 753 P.2d 783 (Colo. App. 1987).

The validity of orders to furnish support and reimbursement are predicated upon a duty to support. Aguilar v. Holcomb, 155 Colo. 530, 395 P.2d 998 (1964).

An order by the California court that the defendant owes a duty of support to the children residing in California was not enforceable in Colorado. The question as to whether defendant had a duty to support the children, whom it was alleged were his, a fact put in issue upon which there was no proof, must have been determined according to the laws of the state of Colorado. Aguilar v. Holcomb, 155 Colo. 530, 395 P.2d 998 (1964).

The trial court could not find a duty of support on the defendant because it does not have any jurisdiction to determine paternity as a part of the proceedings under the uniform act. Aguilar v. Holcomb, 155 Colo. 530, 395 P.2d 998 (1964).

Termination of support liability for Colorado resident. Where the obligor resides in Colorado, he is bound by Colorado law on the issue of when liability for support terminates. McDonald v. McDonald, 634 P.2d 1031 (Colo. App. 1981); Napolitano v. Napolitano, 732 P.2d 245 (Colo. App. 1987).

Application of changed circumstances standard proper. Court properly applied Colorado changed circumstances standard in § 14-10-122 to Colorado resident in action pursuant to Colorado support order rather than conducting new hearing for separate support order. People in Interest of Whittington v. Low, 761 P.2d 274 (Colo. App. 1988) (decided under law in effect prior to enactment of § 14-10-115 (17)).

No independent duty of support. This article does not create an independent duty of support but only a means of enforcing a duty arising out of either a foreign support order or the law of the state where the obligor resides. Com. of Pennsylvania v. Barta, 790 P.2d 895 (Colo. App. 1990).

Applied in County of Clearwater v. Petrash, 41 Colo. App. 143, 589 P.2d 1370 (1978), aff'd in part and rev'd on other grounds, 198 Colo. 231, 598 P.2d 138 (1979); Gruber v. Wallner, 198 Colo. 235, 598 P.2d 135 (1979).