arrears

Posted by: hglucky

arrears - 02/18/07 05:28 PM

Consider a situation where the NCP has never paid support. The courts issued a temporary support order that was less than the final, though the temporary order had not been submitted to CSE. A final order was given about one year later. The order was retroactive to 2 years prior, during the time the temporary order was in place. (I imagine any payments for the temp order would have been deducted from the total, had there been any). Now finally the permanent order was sent to CSE.

Obviously since the permanent order was retroactive and because there had been a temp order, there are plenty of arrears. But are these really arrears when the order had not been submitted for collection to CSE, and at any rate, the NCP did not have a permanent order before now to go by.

Yes, it is true that the NCP never attempted to pay anything, even though the NCP was aware that they were supposed to.

But how does CSE handle a new case like this? Do they automatically calculate interest even though the order hadn't been established before recent? Seems a bit unfair to me. I must be nuts because I am the unaided CP trying to manage on my own. But hey, I am still fair even if the NCP is not. Thanks in advance for your comments.
Posted by: Gecko

Re: arrears - 02/18/07 05:34 PM

But are these really arrears when the order had not been submitted for collection to CSE, and at any rate, the NCP did not have a permanent order before now to go by.

---> Yes.

But how does CSE handle a new case like this? Do they automatically calculate interest even though the order hadn't been established before recent?

---> The order was established, even though it was "temporary" and since it wasn't paid...it's like any other debt that was not paid and it would accumulate interest.
Posted by: googledad

Re: arrears - 02/18/07 05:36 PM

Where do you live ?
Posted by: almostheaven

I think what she's asking is... - 02/18/07 11:39 PM

is interest added onto the "permanent" CS that was retro 2 years. The temp order was only for a year before the final was entered and the final went back a year farther than that and at a higher amount. Although I don't know the answer on that one. Do they add interest onto retro CS?
Posted by: Gecko

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 12:57 AM

Do they add interest onto retro CS?

---> Only on what was due and not paid. So if you have a TO for say $200 and the new order says $250 and backdated...they would only charge intest on the $200 and NOT the $50. At least that is the theory.
Posted by: hglucky

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 03:58 AM

Yes, I was only referring to the permanent order, because the temporary order is no longer effective.

The order is being initiated through florida CSE.

I had posted sometime back with concerns over whether I should enforce the support once the order came. I knew that I had a right to the CS, but the NCP has been quite violent and threatening in the past. As you can see, I have decided to go to CSE, though my goal was more to get the situation 'on the books' than to actually collect at this time. I'm not looking to fleece the NCP. I figure I will accept whatever CSE manages at this time, and won't care too much if they drag their feet. And I certainly won't care if he challenges it and trys to get it lowered. The amount just doesn't matter to me.

But the NCP has gotten away with breaking laws and hurting others with just a slap on the wrist. More importantly, I am tired of letting him frighten me into submission. I just hope I made the right decision.
Posted by: Gecko

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 04:09 AM

The child has a right to be supported by BOTH parents and if Dad wants to be an a$$hole...that's HIS problem...NOT yours.
Posted by: googledad

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 04:25 AM

F1. What guideline type or method does your State use to calculate child support (e.g., Shared Income Model, Percentage of Income Model, Melson Formula)? Income shares based on New Jersey model.
F2. Does your State charge interest on missed arrears? Yes
F2.1. If yes, please indicate the amount of interest charged and any related conditions. Interest is charged on judgements. A missed payment becomes a judgment by operation of law. Interest rates on judgements are determined annually by the state Comptroller.
F3. Does your State charge interest on retroactive support? No
F3.1. If yes, please indicate the amount of interest charged and any related conditions.
F4. Does your State charge interest on adjudicated arrears? Yes
F4.1. If yes, please indicate the amount of interest charged and any related conditions. Interest rates on judgments are determined annually by the State Comptroller. For current rates: http://www.dbf.state.fl.us/interest.html
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 04:33 AM

do you always cut and paste????????? People are looking for real human advice! Any moron can do what you do~
Posted by: googledad

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 04:41 AM

Then do it . Too hard for you to read ?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 04:44 AM

I think you have been told many times that your cut and paste antics are worthless...googiedad. Ever since you joined this board, that is all you do.
Posted by: googledad

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 04:46 AM

Actually I answered the OP's question . What was your great help ?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 04:48 AM

LOL...your a riot! learn to post as a human and not a Google search page.
Posted by: googledad

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 04:50 AM

What's the matter , your playmate not on so you need someone else to argue with ?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 04:53 AM

ok, I was only suggesting that you post with a human mind and not Google every damn thing, which is usually wrong. You steer new posters in the wrong direction. But, you already knew that. You remind me of the Wizard of OZZ! Stand behind the curtin!
Posted by: googledad

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 04:56 AM

You mean the state child support profile at the at the Office of Child Support Enforcement is wrong ? Try again .
Posted by: googledad

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 05:26 AM

[quote]ok, I was only suggesting that you post with a human mind and not Google every damn thing, which is usually wrong. You steer new posters in the wrong direction. But, you already knew that. You remind me of the Wizard of OZZ! Stand behind the curtin! [/quote]


Your biased personal OPINIONS are more likely to steer someone in the wrong direction than anything I post . Feel free to disprove anything I've posted if you can . :p
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 05:38 AM

well [censored], try posting something other than Googling. For every page you post there are 100 that say you are wrong. I would love to chat, but my husband is leaving for work in the morning and won't be back for a few days....Happy Googling....lol moran
Posted by: googledad

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 05:42 AM

Then provide a link or shut the eff up !!!!!
Posted by: googledad

Re: I think what she's asking is... - 02/19/07 05:49 AM

There are pages that disprove specific state statutes ? If you weren't so ignorant I might actually take offense . Skip off to the step family board and discuss topics of importance like how good the Great Race is .
Posted by: almostheaven

I get what she's saying... - 02/19/07 11:25 PM

While cutting and pasting works, it's only good when used appropriately. Doing it ALL the time isn't the best solution. IE: Are you now going to explain to the OP the terms "adjudicated arrears", "judgment" and "retroactive support"? Those of us who have been here awhile may understand all the technical jargon you're pasting. The OP may not. So is it of any help if she doesn't understand it?
Posted by: googledad

Re: I get what she's saying... - 02/19/07 11:57 PM

Nothing in OP's original posts would indicate to me she was not intelligent enough to understand anything I posted . As a matter of fact , I'm betting she's a school teacher .
Posted by: googledad

Re: I get what she's saying... - 02/20/07 12:14 AM

How's this ? OP , the obliger will owe interest on the adjudicated arrears ( the amount in the perm. order ) from the date you originaly filed for CS . He still owes arrears for the retro CS but no interest will accrue .

If I posted this answer there'd be 29 other posters telling me I was wrong , debating whether interest should be allowed on arrears or any of hundreds of other BS arguements and I'd still end up cutting & pasting my original post .
Posted by: Miranda

Re: I get what she's saying... - 02/20/07 12:16 AM

Googling a web site or a paragraph does not make it fact. I rarely rely on internet information as fact. Anyone can post anything.
Posted by: Melody

I think what Katie means is.... - 02/20/07 12:18 AM

that while your statute-like information may be accurate and correct.....it may be difficult for the novice to understand the terminology and meanings. By taking that information and restating it in regular, conversational English....you may be more easily understood and perceived as more helpful. The cutting and pasting is fine as support for what you say, but by itsself, it seems detached and uncaring.
Posted by: googledad

Re: I get what she's saying... - 02/20/07 12:20 AM

Does that include the state child support profile for the Office of Child Support Enforcement at the US Dept. of Health & Human Services ? Do you not believe the state statutes listed on any state's legislative site ?
Posted by: googledad

Re: I get what she's saying... - 02/20/07 12:21 AM

I also don't make moral judgements unlike most of you .
Posted by: almostheaven

Actually... - 02/20/07 12:24 AM

I prefer the OCSE over other sites, but even they can be behind. They can only rely on the newness of the questionnaires the states fill out. And even then...the STATES can be wrong in the info they provide. Just some overworked CSE worker quoting what they think is right when half of them haven't even read their own state's statutes. They can still get things wrong. My own state's CSE has given me wrong info before.
Posted by: almostheaven

Ummm... - 02/20/07 12:24 AM

You just did. ;)
Posted by: Miranda

Re: I get what she's saying... - 02/20/07 12:25 AM

[quote]Does that include the state child support profile for the Office of Child Support Enforcement at the US Dept. of Health & Human Services ? Do you not believe the state statutes listed on any state's legislative site ? [/quote]

I guess it would depend. Even some of those are outdated or not kept up to date. NM's site is down for "upgrades" every other day so no, I would not trust the NM site.
Posted by: googledad

Re: Actually... - 02/20/07 12:27 AM

So your advice is don't believe anybody ? It's easy to double check by looking up the applicable information on the state's own web site .
Posted by: googledad

Re: I get what she's saying... - 02/20/07 12:30 AM

NM has a Lexus Nexus and it's the worst , but still easy enough to navigate .
Posted by: googledad

Re: Ummm... - 02/20/07 12:31 AM

Telling someone they make moral judgements is not making a moral judgement .
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Ummm... - 02/20/07 12:39 AM

yes it is!
Posted by: Redlegg

Re: Ummm... - 02/20/07 12:41 AM

Nothing is so clear as everyone would like to believe, thats why the judges have to decipher what is going on. If it was that cut and dried, then all one would have to do is use the websites. People are looking for a mixture of both experience and wisdom. People who pay could go to the sites,. figure out what they owe and just cut the check, and the payee could do the same and know what to expect, but it is rarely that simple.
Posted by: triple

Re: Ummm... - 02/20/07 12:51 AM

Not really, if he had said "you make moral judgements and that's bad," then yeah. But saying one makes moral judgments is not itself a moral judgement.
Posted by: googledad

Re: Ummm... - 02/20/07 12:52 AM

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: 'mo r-&l, 'mär-
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Main Entry: judg·ment
Function: noun
Variants: or judge·ment/'j&j-m&nt/
1 a : a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion b : an opinion so pronounced
2 a : a formal decision given by a court b (1) : an obligation (as a debt) created by the decree of a court (2) : a certificate evidencing such a decree
3 a capitalized : the final judging of mankind by God b : a divine sentence or decision ; specifically : a calamity held to be sent by God
4 a : the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing b : an opinion or estimate so formed
5 a : the capacity for judging : DISCERNMENT b : the exercise of this capacity
6 : a proposition stating something believed or asserted
synonym see SENSE


I didn't say whether I believe moral judgements are right or wrong ,just that I don't do it . I can't be accused of making one .
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Ummm... - 02/20/07 01:15 AM

you make a lot of moral judgements right down to the brand of purse one chooses to buy.
Posted by: googledad

Re: Ummm... - 02/20/07 01:16 AM

Using someone's own words to make them look foolish is not a moral judgement either .
Posted by: almostheaven

No. I advise just what Katie did... - 02/20/07 03:05 AM

Don't JUST quote material you find online. The point of this is, there are written statutes all over. There are statutes that can put a non-paying NCP in jail. Well, my ex doesn't pay for years at a time. His daughter's 22 and he's STILL nearly $8K behind in CS. Yet he's NEVER even been threatened with jail time. Yet he CAN be. Well good, some fool writes something down, puts it up online and voila! That means all NCPs who don't pay will automatically go to jail? No. That's the problem. You're quoting statutes or what you find online. But it's not REAL LIFE. Posters not only want to know what the law says, but they want to know their chances. They want to know how those statutes work in the real world. Sad fact is that sometimes they don't work at all. They put em on paper, but PEOPLE can say a lot more than a piece of paper. We've been there. We can provide various instances where those laws won't/didn't work and advice for increasing one's chances of making those laws work.

Some people will come in and say this is how it happens, etc. But it's NOT...not always. And those quotes of statutes aren't always what happens either. But we can say this is what happened to ME, or SOMETIMES this might happen, to give a poster a better grasp on how things can go...IOW, many different ways depending on how you play it.
Posted by: almostheaven

Thanks... - 02/20/07 03:06 AM

>>>>>People are looking for a mixture of both experience and wisdom.

That's about what I was trying to say. Just more concise.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Ummm... - 02/20/07 03:07 AM

You made a judgment that other people here were making moral judgments. They may feel what they're doing is giving advice. You feel it's making moral judgments. ;)
Posted by: googledad

Re: No. I advise just what Katie did... - 02/20/07 04:01 AM

And yet , when I posted ( sans cut & paste ) that failure to pay support was a civil matter you felt the need to cut & paste a federal stature that said it was ( under extremely limited circumstances ) .
Posted by: googledad

Re: No. I advise just what Katie did... - 02/20/07 04:30 AM

[quote]Don't JUST quote material you find online. The point of this is, there are written statutes all over. There are statutes that can put a non-paying NCP in jail. Well, my ex doesn't pay for years at a time. His daughter's 22 and he's STILL nearly $8K behind in CS. Yet he's NEVER even been threatened with jail time. Yet he CAN be. Well good, some fool writes something down, puts it up online and voila! That means all NCPs who don't pay will automatically go to jail? No. That's the problem. You're quoting statutes or what you find online. But it's not REAL LIFE. Posters not only want to know what the law says, but they want to know their chances. They want to know how those statutes work in the real world. Sad fact is that sometimes they don't work at all. They put em on paper, but PEOPLE can say a lot more than a piece of paper. We've been there. We can provide various instances where those laws won't/didn't work and advice for increasing one's chances of making those laws work.

Some people will come in and say this is how it happens, etc. But it's NOT...not always. And those quotes of statutes aren't always what happens either. But we can say this is what happened to ME, or SOMETIMES this might happen, to give a poster a better grasp on how things can go...IOW, many different ways depending on how you play it. [/quote]
]


And your experiences in W. VA will help someone in Wash. how ?
Posted by: hglucky

thankyou - 02/20/07 04:32 AM

Thank you for the information. The help is appreciated. Regarding the cut and paste article, I have to admit that while I understood it, it was difficult to read. Legal english isn't at all like conversational english. I never understood why....but that is a different topic for a different board.

Regarding my career, I can tell you that I am not a school teacher. I'm a scientist of sorts, and of course a mother as well.
Posted by: Gecko

Re: No. I advise just what Katie did... - 02/20/07 04:38 AM

You're NOT going to win this arguement. In the particular thread you mentioned, it was PART of the DISCUSSION, not the finate advice being offered.

The problem that many people have with your copy/paste is 1) your assumption that people will understand and 2) your assumption that the law is black and white.

The law is filled with every imaginable shade of grey...that's why trials last so freaking long, why stuff is constantly appealed.

And understanding the law is NOT like read a Dick and Jane book...it's a language all of its own.
Posted by: Gecko

Re: No. I advise just what Katie did... - 02/20/07 04:42 AM

And your experiences in W. VA will help someone in Wash. how ?

---> Because the law is only a SMALL part of it. Generally speaking, the "experience" is pretty much the same regardless of which state you are in and while each state may tweak their laws...they are basically the same because there are federal standards that each state must follow.
Posted by: matilda

I think that the personal anecdotes & - 02/20/07 04:43 AM

the cut and paste from internet searches compliment each other. Together they make for a more balanced response. Why is it necessary to prove one methodology more relevant or important than the other? Why can't they just co-exist? My logical side appreciates googledad's approach. My feeling side appreciates the personal stories. Honestly I would hope that people have more important things to take care of in their real life not to have these cyber worries.
Posted by: Redlegg

Re: I think that the personal anecdotes & - 02/20/07 12:37 PM

Wel. I think (copy and paste here) and that can be backed up by www.google.com and I went through the same thing :)
Posted by: Miranda

Re: I think that the personal anecdotes & - 02/20/07 03:07 PM

Great, wonderful, everyone still loves each other, right? It's Mardi Gras for Pete's sake...eat, drink, and be merry!
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: No. I advise just what Katie did... - 02/20/07 09:25 PM

Yup. I have no problem at all with pasting relevant statutes "from time-to-time". That's why I KEEP saying: "Don't JUST quote material you find online."
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: No. I advise just what Katie did... - 02/20/07 09:31 PM

By giving them a REALISTIC view of how the system works in ALL states. And...I haven't JUST experienced CS issues in WV. ;) I've not experienced them in WA, but I have in a number of states. And they're pretty uniform accross the board in many matters.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: I think that the personal anecdotes & - 02/20/07 09:32 PM

They can exist together, and sometimes the cut and paste is helpful. But doing it as the only means of posting here...just makes a person seem more unhelpful than helpful at a certain point.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: I think that the personal anecdotes & - 02/20/07 09:33 PM

Who's pouring?
Posted by: Sherron

Re: I think that the personal anecdotes & - 02/23/07 10:33 PM

"I have jerks like you for breakfast"???
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: I think that the personal anecdotes & - 02/24/07 04:24 AM

What a maroon!
Posted by: bubble

arrears - 03/03/07 11:17 AM

first post - hope I do this correctly. I'm inquiring about my own situation, which is the same subject. Let me know if I should be posting under new topic.
I'm from Illinois, CP of one child 18ys old, sr in high school.
Our divorce took place 11 years ago, and there have been no modifications to CS since the original document. My confusion comes, first of all, from the wording of the support order. It states the NCP is to pay $125.00 every other week, and is to provide verification of income on an annual basis.
Well, he has paid that amount, and as for the verification part, he has not fully complied. He works partially as an independent contractor/self employed (ins sales) and what he has shown me each year is a photocopy of select pages of a hand written tax filing..the pages that only provide his adjusted gross income, by which he justified the amount of $125 to be an adequate child support payment. No W2s, no gross income shown prior to adjustment. We've argued over this over the years. Recently, I got a peek at the real figures. My son was applied for a student loan and needed financial documentation. That's when I saw that his gross was almost double that of his adjusted amount. This has prompted me to take a second look at the situation. I'm contemplating taking this to court.
Here are some questions:
Should I have this reviewed in family court with no attorney, just to have our document reviewed and enforced, or is more than this necessary (ie. hire lawyer)?
Am I at fault for the arears for not persuing this earlier? After all, he has been complying with the actual stated amount in the divorce document.
Am I being presumptuous in assuming that the income verification clause indicates that CS is subject to change based on this? Is that how a judge would view this?
These are my basic questions, although I do have more, but will start with these. Thank you for any thoughts you may have on the subject!
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: arrears - 03/03/07 02:19 PM

Yes you need to start your own thread. I just happened to see this, but this is an old post scrolled way down the page. Most people aren't going to even see it.

Its hard to tell how a judge would rule on this. If you can show the photo copies he's been giving you and show the true figures you just received, you might be able to get a retroactive increase since he falsified records. I would NOT do this without an attorney though. Get a few free consults, take these documents with you. An attorney should be able to tell you in a consult whether or not you'd have a case.