I got a call

[williaer]

OHIO

I worked for the State of Ohio for 5 years in the early 90's. I resigned and went back to get my Master's degree (also worked to pay my CS while doing this). During this time I decided to withdraw my retirement to live on.

I put in for the money- they held it for appx. 30 days and then sent it to me. No child support was taken out.

2-3 years later, during a review of my older child's CS, the CSEA found out that I had been paid this money. They went after the State of Ohio to pay them the money that was owed on arrears at the time I withdrew it.

The State paid both CS cases all of the arrears owed on their cases at the time that I withdrew the money.

Fast forwad to today. An attorney's office for the State calls and states that I now owe them $3400 (money paid plus interest)- because they paid this money to the CSEA.

NOTE: Both CS orders are in the State of Ohio and were active and being paid by my employment at that time- no question they existed.

1. Does this not fall under the "if you didn't pay it when you had plenty of time to find the Orders during the 30 waiting period- then you are liable" clause? (just like if your employer doesn't send the money when they know they are supposed to)

2. If the CSEA felt that I was in the wrong, wouldn't they have come after ME in the first place and not the State?

[socrateaser]

>1. Does this not fall under the "if you didn't pay it when you
>had plenty of time to find the Orders during the 30 waiting
>period- then you are liable" clause? (just like if your
>employer doesn't send the money when they know they are
>supposed to)

What you are describing is not a legal theory of which I'm aware. If you're implying that some federal retirement law may preempt the state's right to reimbursement, well, I strongly suspect none exists, but I'm not certain.

If you owed the money as arrears, and the state paid it for you, then you have received an unjust benefit at the state's expense, and the court can order you to restore to the state the unjust benefit received. This is called a quasi-contract action, which is an action on a contract which is unenforceable, in this case, because no contract was ever entered into, for which one person benefits unjustly at the other's expense.

You will lose this lawsuit, unless it is barred by the statute of limitations, and as I recall, the SOL for a contract action in Ohio is 15 years, so that will not protect you.

Get out your piggy bank. I'm afraid you're screwed.

>2. If the CSEA felt that I was in the wrong, wouldn't they
>have come after ME in the first place and not the State?

Irrelevant. See above.

[williaer]

I guess what I don't understand is:
When I withdrew the money, I assumed the 30 waiting period was so that they could determine how much of it was going to go to child support. They took the entire month and then sent me the entire amount.

In the standard child support papers that are sent to my employer it states that they are liable for any monies that they should have paid to the CSEA on my behalf, but didn't. I guess I thought this was the same thing. It was the States duty to check on any child support, judgements or garnishments of any kind prior to sending me a lump sum and they failed to do so.

I kind of figured I was screwed if it came to battling the state- but I thought I might ask anyway.

Thanks

[socrateaser]

>I guess what I don't understand is:
>When I withdrew the money, I assumed the 30 waiting period was
>so that they could determine how much of it was going to go to
>child support. They took the entire month and then sent me the
>entire amount.
>
>In the standard child support papers that are sent to my
>employer it states that they are liable for any monies that
>they should have paid to the CSEA on my behalf, but didn't. I
>guess I thought this was the same thing. It was the States
>duty to check on any child support, judgements or garnishments
>of any kind prior to sending me a lump sum and they failed to
>do so.
>
>I kind of figured I was screwed if it came to battling the
>state- but I thought I might ask anyway.

Ordinarily, you could plead "Laches," that the state has unreasonably delayed in enforcing its rights and you are unfairly prejudiced. Unfortunately, the doctrine of Laches is not applicable against a soverign, because once upon a time in merry ole' England, it was the sovereign only who could grant equity (fairness), for which laches is the equitable defense. And, since the sovereign doesn't have to be fair when dealing with himself (being King and all that rot), no equitable defense will stand against the King...I mean, against the State.

It's a bullshit theory, because we're not supposed to have any hereditary Kings, here in the USA, but, we do, in spite of the constitution prohibiting it.

So, without an equitable defense, you're pretty much at the mercy of the King.

"Off with his head!"