Can a child support judgement for arrears be collected from ssdi retro pay

The Law is not clear. Social Security has taken the position that SSDI (Social Security Disability Income) is based on earnings and, therefore, arrearages can be deducted and forwarded to the custodial parent.

Check with your SS office.

Need specific answer to my question, which last answer given was not . Again, can a restraining order for a judgement of past due arrears collect from the 64k lump sum I recvd retro since found to be eligible for ssdi. I have researched n.y. cvp. Law section 52222, which is clearly stated as restraining notice applicable law. It states that disability benefits are exempt under sections 5222a, 5239 and 5240. Am I interpreting correctly and which would be the correct answer?

I can't find the code sections you mentioned, can you provide a link?

Was your lump sum payment attached? If so, its likely it was legal since the agency issuing the payment allowed it. Under most conditions SSI and SSDI are exempt from attachment. Child support and student loans are among the few exceptions.

P.S. please don't start a new thread for a follow-up question. I've merged your threads for you. Please use the Answer This Question options to post a follow-up.

How about this - "Section 459 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 659) allows Social Security benefits to be garnished to enforce child support and/or alimony obligations; ..."

I don't know why you are researching State law if you are asking about Federal SS benefits. The links you provided are not working and I cannot find any section of NY law which would control SS payments.

Again - the law is not clear and it varies from case to case. Ask SS. That's why they have customer reps. The rep will give you the law and the various citations.

Need specific answer to my question, which last answer given was not . Again, can a restraining order for a judgement of past due arrears collect from the 64k lump sum I recvd retro since found to be eligible for ssdi. I have researched n.y. cvp. law section 52222, which is clearly stated as restraining notice applicable law. It states that disability benefits are exempt under sections 5222a, 5239 and 5240. Am i interpreting correctly and which would be the correct answer??

I agree with Judy. The law as your reading it applies only to state benefits and not to federal ones. In this case the SSDI qualifies as "federal" benefits. Also have you applied for the children to receive benefits also if they are or were under 21 at the time you have applied for disability benefits?

Family court handles all proceedings regarding child support, therefore there is no reason to look-up federal law or any other. Restraining notice clearly states that it is pursuant to ny cvp law & rules, Section 5222 for child support debt. Please no personal opinions or refer to attny. I have posted this question hoping that someone would have the needed knowledge to properly answer my question

There was no need to start a new thread. As the law reads and I quote.

YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GET YOUR MONEY BACK
State and federal laws prevent certain money or property from being
taken to satisfy judgments or orders. Such money or property is said to
be "exempt". The following is a partial list of money which may be
exempt:
1. Supplemental security income, (SSI);
2. Social security;
3. Public assistance (welfare);
4. Spousal support, maintenance (alimony) or child support;
5. Unemployment benefits;
6. Disability benefits;
7. Workers' compensation benefits;
8. Public or private pensions;
9. Veterans benefits;
10. Ninety percent of your wages or salary earned in the last sixty
days;

Ref:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$CVP5222$$@TXCVP05222+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=41327340+&TARGET=VIEW

So the FEDERAL LAW suprerceeds the state law in this case. That is why you have to deal with federal law. That IS a direct quote from 5222.

All N.Y. laws here for those interested in the link to it.

Ref:

Laws of New York (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/MENUGETF.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS+&TARGET=VIEW)

State law is secondary to Federal; I have never seen a support order of any sort address the possibility/eventuality of the non-custodial parent qualifying for SS payments of any sort.

Again - Federal Law prevails.

This is not a "child support proceeding." This is ENFORCEMENT of a child support order.

Please no personal opinions or refer to attny. I have posted this question hoping that someone would have the needed knowledge to properly answer my question

Several points to make here:
1) Again, please do not start a new thread, all follow-up questions should be posted as answers to this thread
2) Please do not presume to dictate who should respond to your post or how. Once you post a question you open it to anyone who wants to respond as long as they stay within the rules of this site. If you don't like an answer you are free to ignore it
3) None of the answers you received are personal opinions. They have all been given according to the law.
4) you have been asked for some additional info to help us answer you, yet you have not provided such info.

Now let me sum up how I see this. You received a lump sum SSDI award from which the government took some (or all) of it to pay child support arrears that you owed. You are trying to get this attachment overturned to get back your money. To justify overturning this you are hanging your hat on Section 5222 of NYS law. But you have been told, along with specific cites, that federal law allows the attachment and that federal law supercedes state law in this matter. This was not opinion, but based on the existing statutes. Therefore, it would appear that your question HAS been answered and authoritatively.

I have read the same partial list of money which "MAY" be exempt, as noted in ny cvp law ny code section 5222, which is the section listed on the restraining order. But yet pg. 2-2, under special instructions, states that the only exemptions are SSI, public assistance, spousal support or child support payments. All the other exemptions which are listed in sec.5222 are not included. My present ssdi is being garnished for my present monthly obligation for child support. Is it possible, or can someone confirm, that retro ssdi payments (lump sum) not be exempt from the restraining order issued for payment of arrears?? The mother of my child also recvd a lump sum for my child. Will this lump sum cover my arrears??

I read this somewhere - ""Section 459 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 659) allows Social Security benefits to be garnished to enforce child support and/or alimony obligations; ..."

When the lump sum payment was sent to the custodial parent what was the explanation - did it expressly say that it was in partial payment of arrears, total payment of arrears, something else?

P.S. Lump sum was electronically deposited to my chase bank acct. which is now frozen and funds to be withdrawn to satisfy the restraining order.

If your current payments are being garnished what makes you think the lump sum retro payment would be exempt? I believe that we have answered your question about it being exempt.

As for the sum the mother received from SS for the child, that was a payment the child was entitled to due to your disability. It has nothing to do with your support arrears.

P.S. Lump sum was electronically deposited to my chase bank acct. which is now frozen and funds to be withdrawn to satisfy the restraining order.

Ok, this presents a slightly different story. We have assumed here, based on your postings, that the support payments were deducted from the lump sum payment. Now you are explaining (as you should have from the beginning) that the deduction was not made from the payment but rather
That it was deposited to your bank account then frozen.

However, I don't think that changes anything. In fact I think it makes it more likely the deduction will be upheld. You can try petitioning the court to unfreeze your funds based on them being exempt. But my educated guess is that the court will rule for the welfare of the child and allow the payments to go towards the arrears.

One other major complication. The lump sum(64k) was deposited to my acct. on 2/23/10. I withdrew it on 3/08/10 in the form of a cashiers check. I than returned on 4/19/10 and the bank issued me a check for 54k, gave me (2) addt'l cashiers check payable to BOA and AE. The remainder in cash. On 5/12 chase recvd the judgement and advised me on 5/19 that a hold was placed on my acct for child support. Since than I was unable to cash the check because chase required the check to be deposited for funds to be avail. The following day. Of course I am unable to do this because my acct. is frozen. On 6/26 I went to chase to have the "payable to" changed in order to be able to deposit in my sons bank acct. Unbelievable but true, they told me that a stop payment had been placed on my check. Is this legal?? And if so, how??

See my previous answer #16.

What about the bank placing a stop payment on the cashiers check I had purchased prior to a hold being placed on my acct.? I was under the assumption that the cashiers check was paid for by me, is my property and the bank has no interest in it since a complete payment was made, which completed the transaction??

I have petitioned the court since 2006,and yrly thereafter of my inability to work. The court would request proof to which I answered that I was awaiting a decision from ssdi. In march when I recvd my benefits award letter I went to court and presented it. Would this clear my arrears since they were adding up based upon my ability to work and based on an income which I was not earning. My x did not appear in court and I have to return 9/10

Of course it is sort of obvoius from the cashier checks that you may have known that they would come for the money and wasing trying to hide it. Or move it around in a shell game to confuse the issue of where the money was. ** most likely going to look bad in court also.

Next yes, state law is trumped by the federal law that allows federal money to be taken. If this had been a check from a state agency it would be different.

It is obvious y

[QUOTE=Fr_Chuck;2411509]Of course it is sort of obvoius from the cashier checks that you may have known that they would come for the money and wasing trying to hide it. Or move it around in a shell game to confuse the issue of where the money was. ** most likely going to look bad in court also.

Next yes, state law is trumped by the federal law that allows federal money to be taken. If this had been a check from a state agency it would be different.

It is obvious you are trying every trick in the book not to pay legally owed funds to your child.

In this case it appears justice will be done

And since it appears a large amount of unpaid child support is due, I hope they may decide to enforce other legal enforcement methods, since those that refuse to pay their child support need to be locked up for a while, as allowed by most state law, it seems to help them feel better about paying

I agree with you in ref. to all those dead beat dads out there. Fortunately and very proud of it I do not fall into that category. {insults removed-<>}


Again - please don't tell "us" how AMHD is run or should be run.

Your question was answered. Of course, then you changed the question but...

If the assumptions about you which are being made are incorrect can you explain who supported your child and why you are playing a shell game with the lump sum settlement? Also why an Attorney isn't involved in all of this - if the Government took a chunk of MY money, I'd be at an Attorney's office at start of business.

what about the bank placing a stop payment on the cashiers check i had purchased prior to a hold being placed on my acct.?? I was under the assumption that the cashiers check was paid for by me, is my property and the bank has no interest in it since a complete payment was made, which completed the transaction????

You made the mistake of not using the cashier's check. Until that check was presented for payment its still in your account. Therefore, once the writ of execution was served on Chase, they had to cancel the checks.

I'm not going to make assumptions here, but I am curious why this money was not used to settle debts that had accrued while you were waiting for it. Had you done so, the money would not have been in the account when the writ was served.


I have petitioned the court since 2006,and yrly thereafter of my inability to work. The court would request proof to which I answered that I was awaiting a decision from ssdi. In march when i recvd my benefits award letter i went to court and presented it. Would this clear my arrears since they were adding up based upon my ability to work and based on an income which I was not earning. My x did not appear in court and i have to return 9/10

So, if I understand you, rather than presenting to the court the medical evidence you submitted to SS, you just told them you were awaiting a decision from them? I don't understand why, at some point since 2006, that you could not present proof to the court; tax returns, medical documents, etc.; that would have proven your change in income and getting you a modification of the support amount.

I doubt if the court will modify your support retroactively. Which means they will not adjust the arrears. I think you have been trying to do this on your own sans attorney and that has now cost you big time.

- Or else it was some type of arrangement to avoid the authorities. One or the other.

Need banking professional for my question.! A cashiers check is a Bankers draft. The funds are in the financial institutions acct. and when presented for payment are paid from the banks acct. The individual who purchased the check either pays for it in cash or the funds are withdrawn from the purchasers acct. at time of purchase. They are considered to be a bank note, guaranteed funds by the issuing bank. This transaction is considered to be the completion of a sale. When an item is purchased the seller no longer has any interest in the item sold. Ownership is passed to the buyer and any claim upon the item. I can only go this far. I see no way legally to have a stop payment placed on said check.Ref: Wikipedia encyclopedia cashiers check, bankers draft and sales.

Apparently Wikipedia is incorrect because it's happened to you - I know if you purchase a cashiers check and the funds are counterfeit and check is stopped.

First, Wikipedia is not the best authority to cite. Second, I answered this for you. A cashier's check is a statement by the bank that there is funds in the account to cover the check and that those finds are on hold to cover the check. However, if something happens beyond the bank's control to make those finds no longer available, then the bank can cancel those checks. A cashier's check is designed for near immediate use. Not to hold onto.

Correct Scott, a Cashiers check is not a money order it is not purchases, it is a bank check and the funds are still in the bank pending it being cashed. The funds are normally "held" for that, but a garnishment ( freeze) over rides any outstanding check.

Sorry you want to believe other than actual facts, but the fact first that the bank did it, should be enough proof.

And Wikipedia is often wrong, the info on it, is just put on there many people.
Heck they even listed me in the 2006 though this year as one of the leading religious leaders in America, that should be enough there to make you worry about them.

and wikipedia is often wrong, the info on it, is just put on there many people.
Heck they even listed me in the 2006 though this year as one of the leading religious leaders in america, that should be enough there to make you worry about them.

Roflmao!

Oh, too much - 10 out of 10. On the floor!

Sounds like you are just trying to cheat your child out of his support!

Thanks to every professional expert which attempted to answer my questions. {Mod note: post removed-<>}

You're welcome. I must say, however, your reaction (what was removed) is very typical. People frequently come here looking, not for accurate answers, but for affirmation of what they believe. When they find they are wrong and the answers show that, they lash out at the responders.

You received very good and accurate advice here. Your questions were answered. Some responder did make assumptions that I disagreed with, but I can understand the reason for those assumptions based on what you posted. Again, your reaction was typical, you got defensive and lashed out, thereby making their assumptions more feasible.

If you don't like this site, you are welcome not to use it again. But any further violations of our rules will result in more removed posts.

sounds like u r just trying to cheat ur child out of his support!

Please don't use text speak on the legal boards.