BILLINGS, Presiding Judge:
Ruth M. Telford appeals from a trial court order granting Gerald D. Lundahl's motion to strike an order to show cause. We affirm.
Telford argues that the trial court erred by ruling that it (i) originally lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the California divorce decree and (ii) currently lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the order to show cause. A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction "presents a question of law, which we review for correctness." Housing Auth. v. Snyder, 2002 UT 28, ¶ 10, 44 P.3d 724.
This case was originally filed by Lundahl in 1978, when he asked the Utah trial court to enforce his visitation rights under a 1977 California divorce decree. In a minute entry dated June 23, 1978, the trial court "ordered enforcement of the California Divorce Decree." Also on June 23, Telford filed an answer and counterclaim. In her answer, Telford claimed that she had "initiated a civil action in the above-entitled Court, Civil No. 49,243, which civil action should be combined with the present case." However, there is no record that a separate civil action was ever filed. In her counterclaim, Telford claimed that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred since the California divorce decree, which required an increase in child support and alimony.
Because this case began as an action to enforce the California divorce decree and because Telford has never filed an independent cause of action to request child support and alimony under Utah law, the orders stemming from this case must be viewed as "true modifications" of the California divorce decree. Utah courts did not, and currently do not, have jurisdiction to modify divorce decrees issued in another state as long as the issuing state retains jurisdiction. See Kirby v. Jacoby, 1999 UT App 52, ¶ 26, 975 P.2d 939; Bankler v. Bankler, 963 P.2d 797, 800 (Utah Ct.App. 1998); Rimensburger v. Rimensburger, 841 P.2d 709, 710 (Utah Ct.App. 1992). Therefore, the trial court did not err by ruling that it never had subject matter jurisdiction to modify Lundahl's child support or alimony obligations under California law.
While we agree with the California Court of Appeals that at the time this case was filed "both Utah and California expressly recognize[d] that . . . sister states may issue independent support orders for differing amounts without having modified, superceded, or nullified each other's orders," Lundahl v. Telford, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 902, 907 (Ct.App. 2004) (citingKammersell v. Kammersell, 792 P.2d 496, 498 (Utah 1990)), we do not agree that an independent support order was ever asked for or issued in Utah.
We deny Lundahl's request for attorney fees on appeal. "A party seeking to recover attorney's fees incurred on appeal shall state the request explicitly and set forth the legal basis for such an award." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9).
We affirm.
WE CONCUR: Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge and William A. Thorne Jr., Judge.