Question on CS post below

[wysiwyg]

Soc,

The below post intriques me - here was situation.

DH under CS obligation, lost job filed for CS reduction due to change in circs.  Went to court and after 3.5 years a cs order came out, court ordered X amount and Y in arrears.  DH paid this faithfully for 5 years in cash directly to courthouse.

After 5 years TItle IV agency wanted total payment of arrears and froze all accounts.  Showed them court order that we were paying CS and arrears by terms of order, they claimed they "could becasue they could"  (as other poster noted - loose excuses and never consistant and never a valid reason).  No court order to do so from judge, but Prosecuting attorney sent "order to with hold all assets until arrears paid in X amount" to financial institutions.  

1. Who was in legal right?
2. Can a prosecuting attorney's "order to with hold" over ride a judges order that was being followed?
3. Note the length of time to render a cs order, should something have been done? (neither attorney would file a writ of mandamus sp.)

Although all is over with and we lost the fight and all our money, and only 5 days from being homeless, I still have a sour taste that things were not legally done on the up and up.  TY

[socrateaser]

>1. Who was in legal right?

Administrative agencies such as the state prosecutor's office have authority to make administrative orders. If you believed that the order contradicted the terms of an existing court order, you should have filed a petition in the court for injunctive relief to order the administrative order set aside on grounds that it directly contradicted the court's orders.

>2. Can a prosecuting attorney's "order to with hold" over ride
>a judges order that was being followed?

No.

>3. Note the length of time to render a cs order, should
>something have been done? (neither attorney would file a writ
>of mandamus sp.)

"Should" has no legal value -- strike it from your vocabulary except where you are asking the court to do something. It's wishful thinking. You had things you could have done. You didn't do them. "Shoulda, woulda, coulda...", etc. If my aunt had !@#$, she'd be my uncle. In the real world, what "should" be done, rarely is done. Or, as Yoda once said, "There is no 'try.' There is only 'do.' Do or do not."

>
>Although all is over with and we lost the fight and all our
>money, and only 5 days from being homeless, I still have a
>sour taste that things were not legally done on the up and up.
> TY

I understand. The state beat you up. Oh well. If there is ever a next time, "do not" allow it to happen.

[wysiwyg]

Thank you for your candor as always you shed the light where it needs to be.  

Just as a side note, the reason our attorney would not file a writ is becasue the judge was his "golfing buddy" and they did a yearly trip to England to golf.  

Have a good day Soc!