Two consenting parents verbally agree to cap the child support increase/decrease on the yearly anniversary back in 2003. The non-custodial parent consistently pays his child support every week for 7years no fail! Now that child is 19 and in college the ex wants to go back to court and collect on all arrears from 2003 to current based on ex husbands income which was increased through out the past 7years. Now this is a verbal agreement between to parents, the ex excepted each child support with never a complaint and cashed them for 7years,never took him back to court which she had done in past 1996,1997,1998,1999 now says she is owed 40,000.00 back arrears because she didn't know his income increased. In divorce decree they were to exchange w-2 in April every year. They did that until 2003 when they both agreed and made the verbal agreement not to and caped the child support at a set dollar amount.Does father have a legal leg?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAMT

Does father have a legal leg?

---

Nope;)! A Court order is valid and may be enforced until another court order replaces the first one.
Every two years the child support enforcement agency automatically reviews each child support case to determine whether the amount to be paid should be increased due to cost of living increases. If the cost of living has increased by more than ten percent since the order of support was made or last reviewed, your order amount will increase by the amount of increase in the cost of living.
That's NIS child support guidelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAMT

Does father have a legal leg?

---

Hello D:

Sure. One NEVER knows how things are going to turn out in court.. However, if, in their verbal agreement, there wasn't ANY provision for an increase based upon the fathers increase in wages, then the court will rule against the father..

That's because a provision such as that, WOULD be in their agreement had she consulted with an attorney. Because she didn't have the benefit of counsel, I believe the judge would rule against the party who benefited from the arrangement, and that's the father.

excon

Make a deal with her. Pay for his college and split the tax savings. Or if he has financial aid, do something else creative over say 4 years, depending on whether she views this 40K as for her or him.

This child support was paid directly to the Mother,Not a child support agent. Per their divorce decree the two parents were to change w-2 each year in April and either increase/decrease. As said prior the two parents had a verbal agreement not to do that and just capped the child support at a set dollar amount. After seven years with NO complaints, No going back to court,now because All child support stopped and the obligation now switches to College education instead. The mother doesn't get HER monies. It now goes to the Child for education,Books,tuition,and other expenses. Question is after 7years of same payments not missing any and this was done between two sound minded adults and over a 7year period isn't that a binding verbal contract? is there a statue of limitation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAMT

this was done between two sound minded adults and over a 7year period isn't that a binding verbal contract??

---

Hello again, D:

I'm back with the same argument. You keep using the term "sound minded". But, what if one of the parties isn't fully apprised of their legal rights?? Would you still call them "sound minded"? You might, but I don't think a court would.

excon

First, it is a principle of law that someone cannot sign away their rights. So, an agreement by the custodial parent to waive any increases would very likely be repudiated by the court.

Second, support is ALWAYS paid to the custodial parent. And NYS law states that support continues until 21. So the fact that the payments were made directly to the mother and not through an agency is immaterial.

Third, the fact that the child is now in school, even dorming has no bearing on the fact that support payments go to the custodial parent.

Repeating information previously given is not going to help. That any agreement on child support has to be ratified by a court or the court can and probably will ignore such an agreement. In fact, the court is likely to consider any payments not made through the court as gifts and not to be applied towards support.

I'm assuming you are the NCP. I don't know who advised you to agree to this verbal agreement, but they clearly knew little about the law. And, apparentally, neither do you. I'm afraid you are between a rock and a hard place. The only thing proving the CP accepted your payments might get you is credit towards what you really owe.

No, verbal agreements are not binding in child support, only written orders that are approved and signed by the judge,

So all good intentions mean nothing