Dare of filing or date of service?

[wavehopper27]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Massachusetts

When requesting a support modification, can it be made retroactive to the filing date or the date the other party was served?

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Massachusetts

When requesting a support modification, can it be made retroactive to the filing date or the date the other party was served?

Maybe. The court could do the date of filing, the date of service, the date of first hearing, the date of decision or any of them.

 

[wavehopper27]

So it would not be out of line for me to request the order be made retroactive to the date of service. Whether or not the judge approves it is another thing.

 

[Ohiogal]

So it would not be out of line for me to request the order be made retroactive to the date of service. Whether or not the judge approves it is another thing.

You can ask. The judge is not mandated to do so.

 

[wavehopper27]

Thanks alot.

 

[latigo]

Maybe. The court could do the date of filing, the date of service, the date of first hearing, the date of decision or any of them.

Well that seems reasonable that an order modify support payments can be made retroactive to the date the motion is filed thus placing the respondent immediately in default.

But lets put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose the respondent files a counter motion successfully obtaining an order of modification reducing the monthly child support. And the case drags out for some usual length of time encompassing several monthly payments.

What then Ohio? Is the original petitioner indebted to cross petitioner for the excess support received during those ensuing months. And if not, why not since it is your questionable opinion that all such orders should be made retroactive?

 

[Ohiogal]

Well that seems reasonable that an order modify support payments can be made retroactive to the date the motion is filed thus placing the respondent immediately in default.

But lets put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose the respondent files a counter motion successfully obtaining an order of modification reducing the monthly child support. And the case drags out for some usual length of time encompassing several monthly payments.

What then Ohio? Is the original petitioner indebted to cross petitioner for the excess support received during those ensuing months. And if not, why not since it is your questionable opinion that all such orders should be made retroactive?

Where did I say it was guaranteed that all such orders "should be made retroactive"? Yeah, it wasn't. Reread, Lat.

 

[single317dad]

Well that seems reasonable that an order modify support payments can be made retroactive to the date the motion is filed thus placing the respondent immediately in default.

Why not? Both parties to a support order should be aware that support is fluid within state guidelines (some have restrictions of 2 years between modifications, for example). If (as an example) NCP gets a new job making $225,000/yr and the support order was based on $75,000/yr, NCP should be prepared to increase his/her support contribution. That should be taken into account the same as tax consequence during consideration of any new compensation package. If said NCP does not inform all parties of their 200% increase in income but simply shows up on Friday afternoon in a new Mercedes, they may very well wish they had planned better.

But lets put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose the respondent files a counter motion successfully obtaining an order of modification reducing the monthly child support. And the case drags out for some usual length of time encompassing several monthly payments.

What then Ohio? Is the original petitioner indebted to cross petitioner for the excess support received during those ensuing months. And if not, why not since it is your questionable opinion that all such orders should be made retroactive?

Again, why not? Once both parties have all relevant information (income statements to the court should do the trick), both parties should be prepared from that moment to live within the new support amounts per statutory guidelines. Why should the CP be immune? It would be very wise, knowing full well that a reduction in support contribution is forthcoming, to begin saving the difference for refund.

Of course, theory and practice are two very different animals. People have bills to pay and lifestyle to maintain. I would imagine it's exceedingly rare for either party to properly plan for either event, and much more common for litigant outrage to follow the court's decision.

 

[latigo]

Where did I say it was guaranteed that all such orders "should be made retroactive"? Yeah, it wasn't. Reread, Lat.

Semantics aside princess, the truth is that post judgment orders changing the level of child support payments, up or down, can and have been given retrospective effect. But it is not a matter of chance or judicial caprice as you have casually indicated to the OP with your indecisive "maybe" and "you can ask" responses.

Often such orders emanated from a finding that a parent failed to disclose sources of income, or a subsequent significant increase or decrease of income. Other factors are the resultant hardship on parent or children, the needs of the children, and the timing of the motion because an unreasonable delay can often militate against the applicant.

Moreover, the effective date of the order can relate back to beyond the date of filing or service to when the applicant notified the respondent of the intention to seek modification.

In sum, there must be demonstrative showing of a change in circumstances justifying a post factum order. And since the OP has offered nothing to indicate the presence of any grounds to support such a request of the court (retrospectively or prospectively) I don't believe it appropriate to encourage the OP to take a stab at it.

 

[Ohiogal]

Semantics aside princess, the truth is that post judgment orders changing the level of child support payments, up or down, can and have been given retrospective effect. But it is not a matter of chance or judicial caprice as you have casually indicated to the OP with your indecisive "maybe" and "you can ask" responses.

Often such orders emanated from a finding that a parent failed to disclose sources of income, or a subsequent significant increase or decrease of income. Other factors are the resultant hardship on parent or children, the needs of the children, and the timing of the motion because an unreasonable delay can often militate against the applicant.

Moreover, the effective date of the order can relate back to beyond the date of filing or service to when the applicant notified the respondent of the intention to seek modification.

In sum, there must be demonstrative showing of a change in circumstances justifying a post factum order. And since the OP has offered nothing to indicate the presence of any grounds to support such a request of the court (retrospectively or prospectively) I don't believe it appropriate to encourage the OP to take a stab at it.

I am not a princess. Ask anyone. I am THE Queen.

And how often do you practice in domestic relations? Do you practice at all? Because I have had judges order it based on the fact that the motion was filed and for no other reason than that it went back to the date of filing. I have also had judges order it from the date of the final trial or from any other date that makes sense. It is possible. That is fact.