Can I be excused from the child support debt I accumulated while I was out of work temporarily?
Judges in most states are prohibited by law from retroactively modifying a child support obligation. This means if a person becomes unable to pay support, he or she may petition the court for a reduction, but, even if the court reduces future payments, it will most likely hold the parent liable for the full amount of support owed at the time. For this reason, if a parent with a child support obligation starts falling behind because the parent's income has decreased or debts have increased, the parent should immediately seek a temporary modification.
For example, let's say Joe has a child support obligation of $300 per month. Joe is laid off of his job, and six months pass before he finds another one with comparable pay. Although Joe could have sought a temporary decrease on the grounds of diminished income, he lets the matter slide and fails to pay any support during the six-month period. Joe's ex-wife later brings Joe into court to collect the $1,800 arrearage. Joe cannot obtain a retroactive ruling excusing him from making the earlier payments.
Copyright 2005 Nolo
My mom's out of work & she doesn't have the money to pay, can you post pone the due date? Plus, William Donnie Mckelvey, Thelma Wilks, Carolyn Collins always told me that Donna Nicole Mckelvey & Tammy Renee Mckelvey weren't Mr. Mckelvey's children. So, now what? Contact my mom @ 494-4632, me- lazylacelacey@yahoo.com.
Thank you!!
Let's say along similar lines, if there were remaining marital assets (i.e. real estate). If the divorced parties had verbal and written (email) communications regarding the transfer of property in exchange for child support (Lump sum payment). It can be proven that the exchange was fair / equitable, however originally this agreement was not brought to the family court for approval? Yet several years later with no warning, the ex-spouse receiving the property then denies it ever occurred and files for arrearages? Is there a problem, or would the doctrine of latches / equitable estoppel be an affirmative defense?