Child support anomoly...advice and help needed

[FL_guy]

Soc,

FACTS:  State = FL, County = Brevard

1) Based on FL state guidelines, CS is set at monthly amount $736.

2) Court order set CS to bi-weekly amount $736 * 12 /26 or $340.

3) This year is the strange year in which there are 27 pay periods.

4) My company took the 26 CS payments and applied the formula 26 * $340 / 27 to come up with a withholding amount $327.40 that is some $12.60 less than the bi-weekly amount for 26 weeks.

5) FL SDU sent delinquancy notices to me, of which I forwarded to my company's legal dept.   Their initial response is that the situation would right itself by the end of the year and not to worry about it.

6) Conversation with the clerk of court (Brevard) proved different.  They stated that 2 weeks is 2 weeks no matter how they fall.  Pay the $340.

7) Bottom line, I will pay $340 more this year than any other year.

8) Income has increased since original CO went into effect.

9) Company's legal and I aggreed to set it right to pay the extra $340 every two weeks, unless another CO goes into effect.

QUESTIONS:

1) Is there any motion I can file other than modification of CS that will set the amount to monthly without raising or lowering the amount (i.e. clarification of order to monthly)?

2) Figured I might as well ask...  Since this anomoly doesn't affect monthly obligors, is there any way to proceed based on discrimination?

3) If no, other than letting it go, is there any other way to proceed?  (I'm proceeding from the fact that if it costs much to do this, then what's the point?)

Thanks for your help.

[socrateaser]

>1) Is there any motion I can file other than modification of
>CS that will set the amount to monthly without raising or
>lowering the amount (i.e. clarification of order to monthly)?

Depends on how your order is actually written. If the order says "bi-weekly" then it's bi-weekly. If the order says twice a month, then it's twice a month.
>
>2) Figured I might as well ask...  Since this anomoly doesn't
>affect monthly obligors, is there any way to proceed based on
>discrimination?

Nope. In order to challenge the order on a constitutional basis, you would have had to appeal within 30 days of the date that the order was first issued.

>
>3) If no, other than letting it go, is there any other way to
>proceed?  (I'm proceeding from the fact that if it costs much
>to do this, then what's the point?)

Exactly. Go surfing instead.

[FL_guy]

Soc,

FACTS:  State = FL, County = Brevard

1) Based on FL state guidelines, CS is set at monthly amount $736.

2) Court order set CS to bi-weekly amount $736 * 12 /26 or $340.

3) This year is the strange year in which there are 27 pay periods.

4) My company took the 26 CS payments and applied the formula 26 * $340 / 27 to come up with a withholding amount $327.40 that is some $12.60 less than the bi-weekly amount for 26 weeks.

5) FL SDU sent delinquancy notices to me, of which I forwarded to my company's legal dept.   Their initial response is that the situation would right itself by the end of the year and not to worry about it.

6) Conversation with the clerk of court (Brevard) proved different.  They stated that 2 weeks is 2 weeks no matter how they fall.  Pay the $340.

7) Bottom line, I will pay $340 more this year than any other year.

8) Income has increased since original CO went into effect.

9) Company's legal and I aggreed to set it right to pay the extra $340 every two weeks, unless another CO goes into effect.

QUESTIONS:

1) Is there any motion I can file other than modification of CS that will set the amount to monthly without raising or lowering the amount (i.e. clarification of order to monthly)?

2) Figured I might as well ask...  Since this anomoly doesn't affect monthly obligors, is there any way to proceed based on discrimination?

3) If no, other than letting it go, is there any other way to proceed?  (I'm proceeding from the fact that if it costs much to do this, then what's the point?)

Thanks for your help.

[socrateaser]

>1) Is there any motion I can file other than modification of
>CS that will set the amount to monthly without raising or
>lowering the amount (i.e. clarification of order to monthly)?

Depends on how your order is actually written. If the order says "bi-weekly" then it's bi-weekly. If the order says twice a month, then it's twice a month.
>
>2) Figured I might as well ask...  Since this anomoly doesn't
>affect monthly obligors, is there any way to proceed based on
>discrimination?

Nope. In order to challenge the order on a constitutional basis, you would have had to appeal within 30 days of the date that the order was first issued.

>
>3) If no, other than letting it go, is there any other way to
>proceed?  (I'm proceeding from the fact that if it costs much
>to do this, then what's the point?)

Exactly. Go surfing instead.