Roche v. Roche
This text of 45 Va. Cir. 525 (Roche v. Roche) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
After considering the arguments and reviewing the file, I have determined that the Court should sustain the plea of Forum Non Conveniens in the above action. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-265 and § 20-88.49. Here, both the Obligor and the Obligee are residents of California as are the children whose support is in issue. Although this Court has jurisdiction over the arrearage issue, it no longer has exclusive jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.39(C). Both considerations of judicial administration and convenience to the parties indicate that California is the more appropriate forum to hear this matter. Cf., Norfolk and Western Ry. v. Williams, 239 Va. 390 (1990).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 Va. Cir. 525, 1998 Va. Cir. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roche-v-roche-vaccfairfax-1998.