More from the lovely homefront of NJ...

[jolawanda]

we live NV
case NJ

refresher:
Notice to Emancipate was to be heard July 12th. That got screwed up and sent to hearing officer. got sent back to judge. In the interim, we were receiving CS checks clearly marked *refund* and that no monies showed owed in CS.
mr. Jola called judges clerk and it was to finally go to judge sometime at the end of august, or first of Sept.

We get the court order stating the 25 year old snapped off payroll. And reduction to what we requested of 60.00 per week. Plus 28 to arrearages.
We paid off the small arrears in July.
so, we look on line and it shows a balance aka arrears of 769.00 but, the corrected amount of weekly support.

My mind just spins with how inept this state is. How do you suggest handling the balance showing?

[socrateaser]

>My mind just spins with how inept this state is. How do you
>suggest handling the balance showing?

If you have proof that the number should be different, then file a motion to recalculate your arrears. If you don't, you can file the same motion, but you'll be at the mercy of the same inept government workers that you are not. Even so, it may be better to ask for a final cacluation of the arrears from the court so that if you pay off the $769, the state can't come back with a new calculation on the next day.

[jolawanda]

but that is where the clerical error is showing up. They were sending back the exact amount to Mr. Jola that they were garnishing. I mean, he would get paid on let's say the 15th and the date on the refund checks was the 16th.....

so, since NJ has made the error, how do we defend ourselves?

[socrateaser]

>but that is where the clerical error is showing up. They were
>sending back the exact amount to Mr. Jola that they were
>garnishing. I mean, he would get paid on let's say the 15th
>and the date on the refund checks was the 16th.....
>
>so, since NJ has made the error, how do we defend ourselves?

With the facts. If you have kept independent track of what you've paid, your prior orders will state what you owe, and you can have a CPA calculate the accrued interest to come up with a statement of what your arrears should be. Then you ask the court to order it, and it will be up to the state to prove that your expert's cacluations are wrong. If they can't (and they probably can't), then the court will order your amount.

The problem of course is that this will probably cost more than what NJ says you owe. But, if you don't go the extra mile, then you could end up with another NJ error and suddenly owe more than you thought again.

As an alternative, you could offer to pay the arrears in full right now, in return for the state filing a "satisfaction of judgment." If the state agrees, then that would prevent it from coming back later for more money.

[jolawanda]

the call center person told him that the case was closed as of May and the emancipation of the 25 year old. That was the explanation of the refund checks. And, that the judges order dated just a few weeks ago re-opened it and that the 769.00 was due back from may to now.

So, how can Mr. Jola owe CS on a closed case? Closed by them? And, the judge said nothing about the change that was granted going back to May. NO mention of anything like that.

Of course, the inept workerbee type person asked him why he didn't just send the checks back....Um, if YOU closed the case, then the money is MINE! :)

so whatchya think now?

[socrateaser]

>the call center person told him that the case was closed as
>of May and the emancipation of the 25 year old. That was the
>explanation of the refund checks. And, that the judges order
>dated just a few weeks ago re-opened it and that the 769.00
>was due back from may to now.
>
>So, how can Mr. Jola owe CS on a closed case? Closed by them?
>And, the judge said nothing about the change that was granted
>going back to May. NO mention of anything like that.
>
>Of course, the inept workerbee type person asked him why he
>didn't just send the checks back....Um, if YOU closed the
>case, then the money is MINE! :)
>
>so whatchya think now?

If the motion to modify that resulted in the emancipation order was file prior to when the case was closed in May, then the latest court order could be deemed retroactive to that May date, in which case you would owe support based upon whatever your new order states, from that date until the present.

If the order does not state how far back the order is retroactive to, then there may be an NJ law that automatically makes the order retroactive as far back as permitted (usually the case, because it gets the state the maximum amount of money from federal matching $$s).

I can't possibly caculate all the possibilities without reading all of the most recent motions and orders and their predecessors, so there's no way for me to comment on your ability to fend this off.

[jolawanda]

Mr. soc.....
the case in NJ was closed as of 5-31-06 by the state of NJ. Thus resulting in zero monies owed to any parent.

the only way the case was re-opened was the ruling of the judge dated 9-18-06. The ncp's paycheck reflects such differences.

So, mr. Soc, the case was closed, resulting in zero monies owed. Any outstanding arrerages were paid. thus, resulting in zero arrearages. Once, the case was magically reopened by the state of the inept nj nothing was owed as any arrearages.

So, from May 31 to Sept. 18th any garnishment illegally taken from Mr. Jola was returned as such.

Don't you find it utterly sickening that the only thing I ever come here to fight about the CS is against the lovely state of NJ? Geez.....

so, now that I have argued our point what shall we say to the snot ass that hung up on Mr. Jola the other day from the state of NJ? literally hung up on him.

[socrateaser]

>so, now that I have argued our point what shall we say to the
>snot ass that hung up on Mr. Jola the other day from the state
>of NJ? literally hung up on him.

Unless you have a judge declare that you owe nothing, you will never convince the state that you it is wrong and you are right (or, I'd be very surprised of it).

Arguing with a state child support worker is a profound waste of time. They don't know the law, except as necessary to do their jobs, and corner cases are not their job. Unless you are speaking to an attorney assigned to the office as legal counsel you are just wasting your time.