Relettered Subsection (d) states the obvious; the obligor's employer must also be notified if income is to be withheld.

Sec. 38. 19-A MRSA §3203, sub-§1, ¶¶F and G, as enacted by PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 and affected by Pt. E, §2, are amended to read:

F. Full or partial payment has been made; or

G. The statute of limitation under section 3153 precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages.; or

Sec. 39. 19-A MRSA §3203, sub-§1, ¶H is enacted to read:

H.__The alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.

Uniform Comment

(This is Section 607 of the Uniform Act.)

Subsection (a) places the burden on the nonregistering party to assert narrowly defined defenses to registration of a support order. The 2001 amendment added an obvious defense that was inadvertently omitted from the original list of defenses. In a multiple order situation, if the nonregistering party contests the allegation regarding the controlling order, either because it allegedly has not been registered or because another order has been misidentified as such, the nonregistering party may defend against enforcement of another order by asserting the existence of a controlling order. Presumably the defense must be substantiated by registration of the other alleged controlling order to be effective.

If the obligor is liable for current support, in the absence of a valid defense under Subsection (b) the registering tribunal must enter an order to enforce that obligation. State Dept. of Revenue ex rel. Rochell v. Morris, 736 So. 2d 41 (Fla. App. 1999); Welsher v. Rager, 491 S.E.2d 661 (N.C. App. 1997); Cowan v.