Court stalls ruling on Motion to Dismiss

[Gentry James]

The only thing that comes to my mind is that what if you lose your job sometime in the next 15 years before your obligation is complete? What if you have a personal financial disaster and can't pay for a while? Then having that credit will save not just you but your children, in the event that you can't keep up at some point in the future. Paying back a credit after your children are adults is a lot easier on the system (and your kids) than having to chase someone down for arrears for years after the kids have aged out. So the policy is understandable. You are trying to make a big change in the law/policy with this lawsuit, you should absolutely NOT expect it to be either quick or easy.

I totally understand your point and agree that abrupt changes are highly disruptive in many cases. But that's life, right? This is the nature of our ill conceived system. Do I get to pay half of my monthly obligation, if my car transmission fails or the furnace goes out? H no! It's the state that demands an exact amount month after month, year after year, regardless of the household micro month to month economics. If the state wanted a 'pay ahead' system they should have promoted legislation as such and they should allow some modest pay behind system also. Think about this. If I lose my job then I can sit back and use my credit for 6 months and my ex, who has grown to rely on the significant money I provide, does not get one dime during that time, meanwhile, the state moves money from my credit account to current obligation and reports an account in good standing so they collect fed funds. O.H. ....

My ex did not know the credit existed, until I told her. Until I filed suit the state's online system did not report credits balances only arrears...she had no clue. The state has since fixed that, citing other reasons for the system redesign of course. The state is not protecting the interests of children by secretly building credits on folks, they are protecting their own pocket.

The underlying problem is that support is based on income, but not tied to it. If a married couple loses a job, is the state all up in their business protecting the children? Only if they ask for help and qualify.... get it? This whole system is inflexible and illogical but it's the state's system and they must play by the rules.

 

[Gentry James]

However the time value of money tells us that $1,500 today is worth $4,758 in 15 years. Quite a difference.

DC

## Added -- at a modest 8 percent interest

Well said, and my unusable credit (until the state says okay) is about $3,500. Many will be lower and many much higher. Also don't forget that we in this class paid federal and state income tax at the time the extra money was taken. We do not get a deferred income statement or some 1099 from the state, get it? We pay state tax on the money the state steals. How sweet is that? So we had to earn more than the money wrongly collected, what is that money worth over time.

 

[Gentry James]

The only thing that comes to my mind is that what if you lose your job sometime in the next 15 years before your obligation is complete? What if you have a personal financial disaster and can't pay for a while? Then having that credit will save not just you but your children, in the event that you can't keep up at some point in the future. Paying back a credit after your children are adults is a lot easier on the system (and your kids) than having to chase someone down for arrears for years after the kids have aged out. So the policy is understandable. You are trying to make a big change in the law/policy with this lawsuit, you should absolutely NOT expect it to be either quick or easy.

Also the problem having a permissible credit with no limit. In a similar individual suit, that is ongoing, the state took a cool $82,000 extra up to the end of his obligation. In that case they were taking double payments. Would it be so hard to run a report or something that compares what is owed to the account balances. What on earth are they doing? Did I mention we pay a 2% processing charge?

Of course while promising that I will be able to use my credit at the end of my obligation in court documents, they have not returned one penny to the gentlemen above and his obligation is complete, so that promise is simply a lie.

 

[Gentry James]

The only thing that comes to my mind is that what if you lose your job sometime in the next 15 years before your obligation is complete? What if you have a personal financial disaster and can't pay for a while? Then having that credit will save not just you but your children, in the event that you can't keep up at some point in the future. Paying back a credit after your children are adults is a lot easier on the system (and your kids) than having to chase someone down for arrears for years after the kids have aged out. So the policy is understandable. You are trying to make a big change in the law/policy with this lawsuit, you should absolutely NOT expect it to be either quick or easy.

On paying ahead, sure lot's of guys would like to pay ahead, but we are NOT ALLOWED TO. Any extra payment WE MAKE are considered a gifts by law and is not applied to our balance. So only the state can create a credit when it's in their best interest. You follow?