Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-5-211

Colorado Revised Statutes 2025 — Title 14: Domestic Matters — Article 5: Uniform Parentage Act § 14-5-211 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify spousal-support order 14‑5‑211. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify spousal‑support order. (a) A tribunal of this state issuing a spousal‑support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the spousal‑support order throughout the existence of the support obligation. (b) A tribunal of this state may not modify a spousal‑support order issued by a tribunal of another state or a foreign country having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state or foreign country. (c) A tribunal of this state that has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal‑support order may serve as: (1) An initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to enforce the spousal‑support order issued in this state; or (2) A responding tribunal to enforce or modify its own spousal‑support order. Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 1248, 10, effective July 1, 2004. L. 2015: (b) amended, (HB 15‑1198), ch. 173, p. 550, 13, effective July 1. PART 3 CIVIL PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION INTRODUCTORY COMMENT This article adds a wide variety of procedural provisions to existing statutory and procedural rules for civil cases. If there is a conflict between those provisions found for other litigation and UIFSA rules set forth in this article, obviously UIFSA rules prevail. For example, it is unlikely that a state will have a provision for testimony by telephone or audiovisual means in a final hearing. Section 316 of this act creates such a right for an out‑of‑state individual. Revisions in this article shift the perspective slightly to accommodate the inclusion of a foreign support order in the equation. Many, but not all, of the provisions in this article are basedupon the fact that a party does not reside in this state. Application of these provisions is not solely based on whether the absent party resides in another state, as formerly was the case. Rather, three distinct formulations are employed depending on the intended application of the provisions: residing in a state; residing in . . . a foreign country; or residing outside this state. The third alternative is intentionally the broadest because it includes persons residing anywhere and is not limited to persons residing in a foreign country as defined in Section 102. Source: Colorado General Assembly, Office of Legislative Legal Services. Colorado Revised Statutes 2025, current through the 75th General Assembly, First Extraordinary Session (August 2025). https://leg.colorado.gov/colorado-revised-statutes