support due date?

[haiku]

the state is RI, but its kind of a generic question.

Court order states "child support to be paid monthly in amount of XXXX"

when is it officially due? first of the month, or date of the court order? or do they have until the the last day of the month? If a person has been sending it on the first, in the past, does that set a precedent for it to come on the first? giving the recipient reason to assume it is now late?

And then after all that, if it is postmarked on the due date, whatever that may be, does that make it on time?

We are having a "discussion" here at home, and we never really thought about it before.

Its goofy, I know, but it would be interesting to get some "official" word for our side of the "debate". ( I searched before I posted but I guess we are the only "maroons" ever to think up this one.)

 

[betterthanher]

the state is RI, but its kind of a generic question.

Court order states "child support to be paid monthly in amount of XXXX"

when is it officially due? first of the month, or date of the court order? or do they have until the the last day of the month? If a person has been sending it on the first, in the past, does that set a precedent for it to come on the first? giving the recipient reason to assume it is now late?

And then after all that, if it is postmarked on the due date, whatever that may be, does that make it on time?

We are having a "discussion" here at home, and we never really thought about it before.

Its goofy, I know, but it would be interesting to get some "official" word for our side of the "debate". ( I searched before I posted but I guess we are the only "maroons" ever to think up this one.)

Hmmm...veddy interesting question. I would have to say that as long as the obligor pays said amount each month, they are fine. Whether it be all of it at the beginning or middle or end or spread out every week or biweekly or every other day. Since it's not date-specific, then it can be paid anytime during that month. Just as long as that amount is paid by months-end.
As far as the postmarked, that would be another issue because, IMO, it wasn't recieved within that month.

 

[LdiJ]

the state is RI, but its kind of a generic question.

Court order states "child support to be paid monthly in amount of XXXX"

when is it officially due? first of the month, or date of the court order? or do they have until the the last day of the month? If a person has been sending it on the first, in the past, does that set a precedent for it to come on the first? giving the recipient reason to assume it is now late?

And then after all that, if it is postmarked on the due date, whatever that may be, does that make it on time?

We are having a "discussion" here at home, and we never really thought about it before.

Its goofy, I know, but it would be interesting to get some "official" word for our side of the "debate". ( I searched before I posted but I guess we are the only "maroons" ever to think up this one.)

Did the court orders give a date when the first payment was to be made? If so, that would generally considered to be the "due date" for each subsequent month.

However, realistically, as long as the payment was made within the month, its unlikely that a judge would find the paying parent in contempt.

If it becomes a real issue for the recieving parent...he/she could certainly file for a modification asking that the payment be due by a specific day each month.

 

[haiku]

Hmmm...veddy interesting question. I would have to say that as long as the obligor pays said amount each month, they are fine. Whether it be all of it at the beginning or middle or end or spread out every week or biweekly or every other day. Since it's not date-specific, then it can be paid anytime during that month. Just as long as that amount is paid by months-end.

****That is what I think too.***

As far as the postmarked, that would be another issue because, IMO, it wasn't recieved within that month.

****This is also what I think, as I certainly can't tell my mortgage company "well it was postmarked the first..." But the other argument is, it was sent by the first so it counts...this one is not as important, to the actual dissagreement, it just came up in passing, s I threw it in too.****

my personal opinion is if the whole amount is there by the end of the month, everything should be golden, but 'the other side" is saying "monthly means the first". Its just a nit-pik.

thank you for helping

 

[haiku]

Did the court orders give a date when the first payment was to be made? If so, that would generally considered to be the "due date" for each subsequent month.

***Nope, that the problem its stated as written, even in subsequent mods.***

However, realistically, as long as the payment was made within the month, its unlikely that a judge would find the paying parent in contempt.

***Thats my thought, its a nitpik, really, in my opinion, were it to come up.***

If it becomes a real issue for the recieving parent...he/she could certainly file for a modification asking that the payment be due by a specific day each month.

***True, but, if it were a case of a dribs and drab payor, they could still drib and drab it up to the now official due date.

My bigger issue was due to the wording, I as "payor" assume monthly meant "when ever" paid in full, by the end of the month. The "payee" is adament its paid in full, by the first. And that a payment arriving after the first is "late". thereby she can nitpik, and tell everyone her ex is always late with support payments..... even if the check arrives after the first but within the week of the first....for the past 10 years :rolleyes****

Thank you!

 

[eyemback]

my personal opinion is if the whole amount is there by the end of the month, everything should be golden, but 'the other side" is saying "monthly means the first". Its just a nit-pik.

thank you for helping

Sounds like the 'other side' has become accustomed to recieving the money on the first. I can see their argument, but they got comfy getting that money 'upfront', if you will, for the month. Better $$ management is needed on their end.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Absent a specific date in the order, the support must be delivered during the month it is due. Period.

There is no statute in any state that I am aware of which specifically stipulates that support must be received on a particular date.

If the 'other side' wishes to file contempt because the support is received on the 30th of the month instead of the 1st, let them.

 

[haiku]

Absent a specific date in the order, the support must be delivered during the month it is due. Period.

There is no statute in any state that I am aware of which specifically stipulates that support must be received on a particular date.

If the 'other side' wishes to file contempt because the support is received on the 30th of the month instead of the 1st, let them.

thank you.

 

[TNBSMommy]

My ex has a history of quitting jobs, and I have had to pull him into court on various occasions b/c he would go years without paying... When I knew he quit a job, it never mattered what time of the month it happened, I simply had to wait 31 days from the last payment, and then it was in contempt again.

For example, one I remember his last payment was on Oct. 26, I had to wait until Nov. 28 to file contempt against him. Even though I knew for a fact he had quit, it wasn't in contempt until he was exactly 31 or 32 days since the last payment....don't know if that helps, but that is my experience with it.

 

[haiku]

thanks guys! just so there is no misunderstanding let me explain.... the court order is as stated, no official due or start date.

the support has arrived in full like clockwork the first week of every month for 10 years, since its inception, and will continue to do so. ( I don't want anyone to think Mr. Haiku is planning on playing games, or something LOL)

the week before labor day, he gets a phonecall, that "the support better darn well be in her mail box on the first, and not "late" like it always is."

Which led to a "huh?" on his part, and the questions as to whether or not what we thought was correct was correct.

nothing will come of it,either way, we figure she probably had someone in the background she was trying to "impress". She just likes to complain, and its hard for her to find anything to complain about.....

 

[tigger22472]

thanks guys! just so there is no misunderstanding let me explain.... the court order is as stated, no official due or start date.

the support has arrived in full like clockwork the first week of every month for 10 years, since its inception, and will continue to do so. ( I don't want anyone to think Mr. Haiku is planning on playing games, or something LOL)

the week before labor day, he gets a phonecall, that "the support better darn well be in her mail box on the first, and not "late" like it always is."

Which led to a "huh?" on his part, and the questions as to whether or not what we thought was correct was correct.

nothing will come of it,either way, we figure she probably had someone in the background she was trying to "impress". She just likes to complain, and its hard for her to find anything to complain about.....

Even as a CP... I think I'd suggest that Mr. Haiku, have it in her 'mailbox' on oh... the 20th just to be certain she does get it and it can't come back and bite him in the butt.

She needs to be 'darn' happy that she gets it and he doesn't walk away from his responsibilities. Many of us didn't and haven't had that.

And on a side note, my ex was opposite of that. You could tell when someone was around because he was sweet as sugar when he talked to me. It was when he was alone that I was everything in the book.

 

[SingleMom67]

I posed the same question to my case worker in CSE. I've never found any case law to back this up, but she stated how CSE views the "due date" is if the CO states "monthly", then they count 30 days from the date of the filing of the order. In other words, if the CO is court stamped say Sept. 1st for example, then the obligation has to be paid within 30 days from Sept. 1st.