14-5-607. Contest of registration or enforcement.

(a) A party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered order or seeking to vacate the registration has the burden of proving one or more of the following defenses:

(1) The issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party;

(2) The order was obtained by fraud;

(3) The order has been vacated, suspended, or modified by a later order;

(4) The issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal;

(5) There is a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought;

(6) Full or partial payment has been made;

(7) The statute of limitation under section 14-5-604 precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages; or

(8) The alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.

(b) If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under subsection (a) of this section, a tribunal may stay enforcement of the registered order, continue the proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence, and issue other appropriate orders. An uncontested portion of the registered order may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of this state.

(c) If the contesting party does not establish a defense under subsection (a) of this section to the validity or enforcement of the order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order.

Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1598, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2003: (a)(6) and (a)(7) amended and (a)(8) added, p. 1260, § 37, effective July 1, 2004.

Agreement between parents that was not approved by a court does not constitute a defense to registration under subsection (a)(3). People ex. rel. State of Wyo. v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819 (Colo. App. 1998).

Subsection (b) conferred personal jurisdiction over another state's child support enforcement agency that continued to collect withholdings from plaintiff's wages under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, contrary to a previous Colorado court order vacating the other state's judgment upon which the wage assignment was based. Vogan v. County of San Diego, 193 P.3d 336 (Colo. App. 2008).