Anger, Modifications, & Questions in Ohio

[fairisfair]

Okay when I saw your post saying you needed me to answer and the statement about heeding my name and do it I about decided not to answer at all. The first post made no sense to me but this one does. Here is the thing:
The difference between 650 and 596 is $54. That is not a deviation of even 10% let alone more than 10%. August of 2003 is nearly close enough to 3 years. He can try to take it to court and then it is up to the judge's discretion. The hearing officer COULD per chance agree with his argument HOWEVER it is very unlikely. The reason being is that the amount was issued by order if it went through CSEA. The order deviating from the Ohio guidelines needs to go back through the court to be modified again. Or the two parties have to agree to the downward modification. So no he won't win based strictly on that fact. Because the only way CSEA can modify a support order is by the state law. The state law provides for the 10% deviation.
If HE went to court and showed a change in circumstances from when the original order was signed and used the modification amount then the court could possibly modify it.

Just an aside, I think the thing about the screen name, and "do it" was being directed to grow up, not to you.

 

[Ohiogal]

Just an aside, I think the thing about the screen name, and "do it" was being directed to grow up, not to you.

I was thinking that too when I read it but I was still feeling ordered for a few and I dont respond well to orders. Though Grow Up had a point -- her first post was extremely hard to understand. I read it a few times and gave up and checked back every now and again to see if she posted anything else to make it make sense.

 

[ceara19]

I was thinking that too when I read it but I was still feeling ordered for a few and I dont respond well to orders. Though Grow Up had a point -- her first post was extremely hard to understand. I read it a few times and gave up and checked back every now and again to see if she posted anything else to make it make sense.

I think I figured out what the question is.

Dad should have been paying $600 a month all along. Instead of one lump sum check every month, he was paying $150 each week. ($150 X 4 = 600).

In months with 5 weeks, dad should have only made 4 payments of $150 and skipped the last week because he had already paid $600 for the month.

The problem is, there is apparently NO ONE involved in this situation that knows how to use a calculator!

If the order is for $600 the formula is

$600 X 12 = $7200 per year
$7200 / 52 weeks = $138.46 per week, NOT $150 per week.

52 payments of $150 per week = $7800 per year
$7800 / 12 months = $650 a month

Even if the OP would have worded the question better, the whole thing is confusing to begin with. When DAD figured it out, that is probably when he started making only 4 payments a month, regardless of how many total weeks there were. Which in turn caused mom to try and have it raised to $650 because she had made a dumba$$ mistake and was DEPENDENT upon the extra $50 a month. (But since she can't use a calculator, it's no surprise.)

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

I think I figured out what the question is.

Dad should have been paying $600 a month all along. Instead of one lump sum check every month, he was paying $150 each week. ($150 X 4 = 600).

In months with 5 weeks, dad should have only made 4 payments of $150 and skipped the last week because he had already paid $600 for the month.

The problem is, there is apparently NO ONE involved in this situation that knows how to use a calculator!

If the order is for $600 the formula is

$600 X 12 = $7200 per year
$7200 / 52 weeks = $138.46 per week, NOT $150 per week.

Gotta disagree hun. He aggeed. and was then orded to pay 150 a week. They, themselves should have looked at the *Month* thing. He did not pay every month, so mom took it to CSS and had it engraved. The extra 50 bucks a month accumulates to the extra weeks.

 

[ceara19]

Gotta disagree hun. He aggeed. and was then orded to pay 150 a week. They, themselves should have looked at the *Month* thing. He did not pay every month, so mom took it to CSS and had it engraved. The extra 50 bucks a month accumulates to the extra weeks.

I re-read the first post and did see an error in my earlier thinking.

The agreement was for $600 per month. They agreed to weekly payments. However the order was very poorly worded it ONLY said equal weekly payments, there was NO dollar amount stipulated.

So, dad pays $150 a week for 4 weeks every month, skipping any 5th weeks that occur. Everyone is just fine and dandy with the way it is going and there were no complaints.

One day mom gets pissed for whatever reason and knowing that the order was poorly worded, takes advantage of it using the mistake to "get even" with dad and has the order clarified. At this point it NOW states payments of $150 EVERY week.

Dad, not wanting to make waves, says screw it and just pays the $150 every week as ordered instead of going back and pointing out the SECOND order was not $600 a month that was agreed upon and starting an all out war over it. Again, he pays, mom's happy, everyone gets along.

Then mom gets pissed AGAIN and tries to have support RAISED, but she is denied. Now dad has finally had enough and has asked for a hearing to have the amount changed BACK to the original $600 per month and mom is scared he will get it and she can't survive with out the extra $50/mo she has been receiving.

At this point, I don't think dad has failed to follow the court order. But it sounds like he's had enough of mom's mood swings and has decided to now fight the extra money he has been paying and wants to go back to the original agreement of $600.

 

[Ohiogal]

I re-read the first post and did see an error in my earlier thinking.

The agreement was for $600 per month. They agreed to weekly payments. However the order was very poorly worded it ONLY said equal weekly payments, there was NO dollar amount stipulated.

So, dad pays $150 a week for 4 weeks every month, skipping any 5th weeks that occur. Everyone is just fine and dandy with the way it is going and there were no complaints.

One day mom gets pissed for whatever reason and knowing that the order was poorly worded, takes advantage of it using the mistake to "get even" with dad and has the order clarified. At this point it NOW states payments of $150 EVERY week.

Dad, not wanting to make waves, says screw it and just pays the $150 every week as ordered instead of going back and pointing out the SECOND order was not $600 a month that was agreed upon and starting an all out war over it. Again, he pays, mom's happy, everyone gets along.

Then mom gets pissed AGAIN and tries to have support RAISED, but she is denied. Now dad has finally had enough and has asked for a hearing to have the amount changed BACK to the original $600 per month and mom is scared he will get it and she can't survive with out the extra $50/mo she has been receiving.

At this point, I don't think dad has failed to follow the court order. But it sounds like he's had enough of mom's mood swings and has decided to now fight the extra money he has been paying and wants to go back to the original agreement of $600.

Actually I dont think dad ever did pay $150 a week every week including the extra fifth weeks in some months. He ended up being ordered to do it in August 2003. Now he wants to ask for a modification because what he agreed to is not based on Ohio guidelines. He won't get it through CSEA because of the 10% deviation required. He could go back to court if there has been a change of circumstances (he is earning less now unvoluntarily or mom is earning a great deal more or mom is living at home or something of that nature) and use that as a reason why it should be lowered the $54.00 a month.

 

[kdbaby91]

Ceara I wish I could have written it as well as you in the first place. As a first time poster and posting for someone else I was all jumbled on my wording.
She was living at a house for free that was owned by her ex-father-in-law, but moved out of it shortly after she asked for the modification. So, she has become dependent on the extra $50 a month. That is why we were looking into his side of the arguement. He said that she lived off of the $600 a month before (when she had her other apt.) and that she should go back to her original agreement.
While he was paying the amount they had verbally agreed on, the monthly amount was never listed in the agreement. Which neither one of them expected it to be raised. Neither one of them thought about 5 week months. And since it wasn't going through csea (because she had him sign a waiver saying they lived together) it was just the way they figured it out.
I appreciate all of the help. I don't think he will go to all that much trouble. Aside from the admin hearing. I don't think he will put it in front of a judge.

 

[stealth2]

The problem is, there is apparently NO ONE involved in this situation that knows how to use a calculator!

In addition, it's generally accepted that a month = 4.3 weeks to accomodate the extra days in a month. Only one month has an exact 4 weeks to it - February. Every other month has a few extra days.

Which points out exactly why people should at least run everything through a lawyer prior to signing anything with legal ramifications.