How to Respond to Letter?

[katiedee2006]

Venue is NY, DH is CP, BM is NCP in AZ.  SD is 20.

DH filed Violation Petition for non-payment of Support & Unreimbursed Medical (comprised of moderately expensive ongoing therapy for SD).  DH is Pro Se, BM has an atty.  To DH, strictly a matter of BM owes "X", has only paid "Y" & owes the difference, per existing CO.  That is the only issue in the instant action.

As directed by Hearing Examiner, DH sent ltr. to BM's atty. stating amounts owed by BM & enclosing copies of all paid (by DH) medical bills for which BM owes DH a percentage.  Apparently atty. forwarded to BM.

BM sends DH a copy of her 4 page letter to her atty. in response to DH's letter.  This letter contains myriad information unrelated to the issues, some embellishments and some outright lies.  For example:

BM encloses copies of all HER recent medical bills (had surgery in Jan. '05)

BM states DH falsely took IRS deduction for SD (as BM believes custody order from years ago still allows her to claim the deduction.  IRS rules read differently)

DH told BM to not put SD on BM's insurance.  Reality – DH said do what you want but therapist does not participate in HMO plans & you will pay far more in premiums than you will receive in benefits. (As an aside, the premiums were more than double BM's obligation for her share of unreimbursed medical but she refuses to pay DH).

BM claims we (DH & I) are interfering w/visitation agreement & communication w/SD, alleging we do not give SD messages, and lie about her not being home etc., as SD does not call back.  Reality – SD gets all msgs. but is furious w/BM for her own reasons (abandonment of SD & inability to s/w SD w/o bringing up court proceedings w/DH, how wrong DH is, etc.) & does not wish to speak with her often.  BM also calls SD on her cell incessantly (according to SD).  BM does not comprehend custody/visitation ceased upon SD's 18th BD & we can not force SD to s/w or fly out to see BM.

BM claims CS is not being spent on SD – demands to know how it is being spent.

BM wants copies of cancelled checks signed by DH (not me) as further proof of payments to therapist. [CO states BM to receive EOB, if it exists, or copy of bill]

There is more, but you get the picture...

1) Since ltr. came from BM & not her atty., should DH even bother responding to her atty. re: this letter?

2) If so, how should he handle all the nonsensical information?  Should he only reference support/unreimbursed medical and completely ignore all superfluous info or would the lack of a firm denial be deemed an admission to all BM's accusations/allegations?

Thank you.

[socrateaser]

Send letter to attorney, attach copy of BM's letter. Tell attorney that you will be happy to address any issue in the letter that the attorney believes is appropriate to the instant action, however you would appreciate it if the attorney would clarify with his/her client as to the precise issues involved, and then send you a formal interrogatory request.

[katiedee2006]

Thank you very much.

I forgot to mention that BM attached copies of her recent paystubs (although not necessary per Hearing Examiner), which confirms her new salary as $37,000.  CS was based on her salary last year of $25,000, new job represents a ~48% increase.

NY CS based strictly on % of NCP's income.  DH is not really looking for a modification, just wants BM to comply w/current order.

DH would somehow like to use the new salary information as an incentive for BM to comply w/current order, perhaps suggesting that compliance with current order is financially advantageous to DH seeking a modification, but does not want to be misconstrued as threatening in any way.  Truthfully, any CS will help defray college expenses.


1) Is DH's idea good/bad?  

2) Is that kind of salary increase generally considered a valid change in circumstances?

Thanks again!

[socrateaser]

>1) Is DH's idea good/bad?  

You have to be careful how you word this. You could say something like:

It appears from your client's most recent financial documents that a change in circumstances re child support has occured. I have no interest in this issue, however -- I merely want to be paid what is currently owed."

But, if you say "I demand money for the current arrears, or else I'll file for a support mod to get much more," that could be viewed as criminal extortion.

>
>2) Is that kind of salary increase generally considered a
>valid change in circumstances?

Yes. A $5 per pay period change in income has been justified as a change in circumstances is some instances.

[katiedee2006]

>It appears from your client's most recent financial documents
>that a change in circumstances re child support has occured. I
>have no interest in this issue, however -- I merely want to be
>paid what is currently owed."
>
>But, if you say "I demand money for the current arrears, or
>else I'll file for a support mod to get much more," that could
>be viewed as criminal extortion.
>


Thanks again.

BM's wages are being garnished to include arrears.  The amount of the garnishment is an area of contention in her letter.  We truthfully do not know how SCU calculates the amount of arrears to be added on to garnishment.

Coincidentally, garnished amount is roughly 17% of BM's new salary; NY's statutory guidelines for one child.  We think it's nothing more than an interesting coincidence (perhaps we are wrong).

DH is thinking of responding to BM's inquiry as to how the garnished amount was set by saying something to the effect of, "I am not familiar with the procedures used in SCU's calculations, however the garnished amount is approximately 17% of BM's current salary, consistent with NYS statutory provisions regarding support for one child." (I know I'm not quoting DH verbatim).

He would most likely be wrong in his insinuation that the garnishment amount is deliberately 17%, but thought that perhaps atty. would then understand DH is aware of the statutory provisions; and hopefully atty. would advise BM compliance with current order is the best way to go.

1) Thoughts on whether this wording is okay?

[socrateaser]

>1) Thoughts on whether this wording is okay?

I think your approach is incorrect, and I suggest that you reconsider my prior suggestions. You are attempting to be tricky before you get the straight story from the other side. I strongly suggest that you allow opposing counsel to try to get his/her client under control, and ask him to please clarify his client's position before you make any statements towards negotiation.

This is the professional approach and opposing counsel will appreciate the opportunity to get a clear statement of all the issues before trying to negotiate towards settlement.

[katiedee2006]

.