RESgrignoli
Junior Member
Is a Payment "Receipt" a Legal "Order" of Costs.....Over What a "Judge" States?
Pennsylvania:
Situation: Son receives parking ticket; vehicle in my name; I'm not aware of ticket; I do not pay in time; I receive official reminder "Summons" in mail (with copy of ticket attached). This "Summons" did not include any official details of fine/costs involved, but the attached parking ticket did include an amount of $10.00.
I send in my plea of guilty and include check for $10.00.
Immediately after sending in the money, I receive a "Time Payment Order" which states $10.00 fine and $37.00 costs for total of $47.00, signed by judge.
I then later receive a receipt for my $10.00, but on the receipt, it states that the ORIGINAL cost was not $47.00, but $57.00, with a balance due still of $47.00.
But, this is NOT a court order...only a receipt. I then mail in the remaining $37.00 (based on Time Payment Order - not receipt).
I receive another receipt for the additional $37.00 with clerk handwritten statement, "Pay balance promptly or a warrant will be issued!"
My question is simple: What takes precedence in law, a "Time Payment Order" signed by the Judge with an initial breakdown of fees totally $47.00, or a mere "receipt" which says that the initial cost was "actually" $57.00? In my view, the COURT ORDER, with the Judge's signature, should be the overriding dictate.
Pennsylvania:
Situation: Son receives parking ticket; vehicle in my name; I'm not aware of ticket; I do not pay in time; I receive official reminder "Summons" in mail (with copy of ticket attached). This "Summons" did not include any official details of fine/costs involved, but the attached parking ticket did include an amount of $10.00.
I send in my plea of guilty and include check for $10.00.
Immediately after sending in the money, I receive a "Time Payment Order" which states $10.00 fine and $37.00 costs for total of $47.00, signed by judge.
I then later receive a receipt for my $10.00, but on the receipt, it states that the ORIGINAL cost was not $47.00, but $57.00, with a balance due still of $47.00.
But, this is NOT a court order...only a receipt. I then mail in the remaining $37.00 (based on Time Payment Order - not receipt).
I receive another receipt for the additional $37.00 with clerk handwritten statement, "Pay balance promptly or a warrant will be issued!"
My question is simple: What takes precedence in law, a "Time Payment Order" signed by the Judge with an initial breakdown of fees totally $47.00, or a mere "receipt" which says that the initial cost was "actually" $57.00? In my view, the COURT ORDER, with the Judge's signature, should be the overriding dictate.
