Check out some similar questions!

antspa · Mar 8, 2011, 10:32 AM

I started paying child spt in 2000-$660/mo for two sons. According to the order,my pmt amt was to be reduced to 20% of my then stated monthly income when my oldest son graduated from high school. That would make my pmts at $520/mo. However, I've been overpaying since 2007 and have a little more than a year left on my youngest son. My question is: Will the court adjust my remaining pmts to offset the overpayments?.

smoothy · Mar 8, 2011, 11:07 AM

Being that 2007 was 4 years ago... did you not bring this to the attention of the court earlier? If not why?

Additionally... where are you located, as to Country and state.

AK lawyer · Mar 8, 2011, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by antspa

I started paying child spt in 2000-$660/mo for two sons. According to the order,my pmt amt was to be reduced to 20% of my then stated monthly income when my oldest son graduated from high school. That would make my pmts at $520/mo. However, i've been overpaying since 2007 and have a little more than a year left on my youngest son. My question is: Will the court adjust my remaining pmts to offset the overpayments?..

If you have been making payments through a state agency, the first thing you should do is to reduce your payments to what you should be making as stated in the order ($520/month, evidently). Then ask the agency how to recover the over-payments.

cdad · Mar 8, 2011, 12:30 PM

Unless you have brought this forward to someone's attention before now its not likely to garner an adjustment in court for the overpayments. If you did let them know and it has taken this long to get any kind of action then its worth taking to court. But consider this. Based on current income and possible court filing fees might it be best to let it run its course and be done with it in a years time ?

AK lawyer · Mar 8, 2011, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Unless you have brought this forward to someones attention before now its not likely to garner an adjustment in court for the overpayments. ...

If the decree says what OP says it does, there is no need to go to court. OP should simply reduce the payments accordingly. If someone thinks (s)he miscalculated, that someone would have to take the matter to court.

cdad · Mar 8, 2011, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

If the decree says what OP says it does, there is no need to go to court. OP should simply reduce the payments accordingly. If someone thinks (s)he miscalculated, that someone would have to take the matter to court.

Here is the problem. If there is a wage garnishment and they are taking the money directly then they aren't going to take the time to read his court papers. They will simply wait until a garnishment order that has been amended comes through. The problem comes on how the money is delivered. If its through a support agency of the state then they would have to handle it. The thing that Im still wondering is has it been brought to anyone's attention already or is this the first time the adjustment has been mentioned by the OP in this regard. Also the custodial parent has the right to take him back for more wages if he is making more then he was when the first order was created. It becomes a catch 22.

Until the OP can provide us with more information the rest is speculation. But I know first hand companies are very afraid of making changes that isn't in writing from official sources. And in most cases won't read and interprit court documents. So its up to the OP to let us know what's really going on.

AK lawyer · Mar 8, 2011, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by califdadof3

... Until the OP can provide us with more information the rest is speculation. ...

All true. That's why I asked if (s)he was paying through an agency. But (s)he said at the beginning "I started paying ... However, i've been overpaying ...". This language suggests that he is voluntarily paying and that it's not some sort of payroll witholding or garnishment.

But if (s)he's been overpaying, I hesitate to tell him or her to simply reduce his/her payments below the amount (s)he indicates (s)he should now be paying ($520/mo). The overage could be regarded as gifts. Additionally, an underpayment now could put the custodial parent in difficulty and the custodial parent could very well argue that this difficulty is not of his/her making.

cdad · Mar 8, 2011, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

All true. That's why I asked if (s)he was paying through an agency. But (s)he said at the beginning "I started paying ... However, i've been overpaying ...". This language suggests that he is voluntarily paying and that it's not some sort of payroll witholding or garnishment.

But if (s)he's been overpaying, I hesitate to tell him or her to simply reduce his/her payments below the amount (s)he indicates (s)he should now be paying ($520/mo). The overage could be regarded as gifts. Additionally, an underpayment now could put the custodial parent in difficulty and the custodial parent could very well argue that this difficulty is not of his/her making.

If it wasn't for the timeline it would be a lot easier to figure out. :D