made me wonder

[ezmarelda]

What is the name of your state? California

The case before mine today made me curious and I am hoping somebody has the answer('cuz even the Commissioner was stumped)

Here's the situation: Person A is a 1/3 partner in an LLC, Person A has a CS order that is suposed to be taken out of his monthy paycheck. Person A claims Person B takes care of all the money issues so it is her responsability to send the money to the CSA. Nobody sends the money, CSA files contempt charges on the LLC the party named is the Company name not an indavidual person. Person A & person B apear in court CSA wants to hold person B liable for payment or punishment for noncompliance
Commissioner continued the case so that he could research "who" should be liable...What do ya'll think??? Person A (parent) Person B (in charge of pay-roll) Person C (not there at all)

 

[ceara19]

What is the name of your state? California

The case before mine today made me curious and I am hoping somebody has the answer('cuz even the Commissioner was stumped)

Here's the situation: Person A is a 1/3 partner in an LLC, Person A has a CS order that is suposed to be taken out of his monthy paycheck. Person A claims Person B takes care of all the money issues so it is her responsability to send the money to the CSA. Nobody sends the money, CSA files contempt charges on the LLC the party named is the Company name not an indavidual person. Person A & person B apear in court CSA wants to hold person B liable for payment or punishment for noncompliance
Commissioner continued the case so that he could research "who" should be liable...What do ya'll think??? Person A (parent) Person B (in charge of pay-roll) Person C (not there at all)

That is a very interesting question. I don't know what the answer for California is, but since this is a curiosity question and not an "advice" question, I can tell you how it would work in Texas.

Person A would STILL be liable for the child support payments because of the fact that they were never actually garnished from his/her paycheck. It is Person A's responsibility to make sure the CS is being paid in full if/when it is NOT garnished. It's like when a person has a smaller check then usual or gets no check at all, the payment is still due, they KNOW the payment is due and they are responsible for that payment.

However, that doesn't mean that the company would be off the hook entirely. In Texas, an employer has 45 days to comply with a garnishment order. If, after 45 days, they do not start the garnishment, the parent RECEIVING child support may be able to go after the company for damages (I'm almost positive that CSE could NOT though). I don't remember the exact parameters and limits, but I THINK that damages are capped at either 2 or 3 times the amount of ungarnished child support, which is not necessarily the same as the total amount of child support due.

In the end, Person A could end up being hit up for the money TWICE, once as the parent and then again as a business partner.

 

[tigger22472]

And yet here's another take...

In Indiana a wage garshiment is sent to the employer and they have X amount of days to begin garnishment and make sure it is correct. If they do not do so they are held liable and fined. This would mean not just person B but the company as a whole would be fined for this.

Now, considering that this person is part owner of the company that could bring additional charges I would think.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Except that there was no 'wage garnishment' issue in this post. A Limited Liability Corporation is simply another form of corporate entity and is somewhat shielded from the issue here. IF there was a wage garnishment, then the corporation would be responsible for executing such IF they were informed of the garnishment.

However, the ultimate responsible party is the one under garnishment. It is their responsibility to inform the paying party, their responsibility to insure the payments are being made and ultimately their responsibility to answer if such is not done.

The child support agency has no authority over the LLC here except if there was a wage garnishment and only then to the extent of it's failure to exercise control over such.

 

[ceara19]

Except that there was no 'wage garnishment' issue in this post. A Limited Liability Corporation is simply another form of corporate entity and is somewhat shielded from the issue here. IF there was a wage garnishment, then the corporation would be responsible for executing such IF they were informed of the garnishment.

However, the ultimate responsible party is the one under garnishment. It is their responsibility to inform the paying party, their responsibility to insure the payments are being made and ultimately their responsibility to answer if such is not done.

The child support agency has no authority over the LLC here except if there was a wage garnishment and only then to the extent of it's failure to exercise control over such.

I assumed that there was a wage garnishment due to the fact that the Commissioner was stumped. If there was no garnishment order, the Commissioner shouldn't have been stumped by the situation.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I assumed that there was a wage garnishment due to the fact that the Commissioner was stumped. If there was no garnishment order, the Commissioner shouldn't have been stumped by the situation.

You're kidding right? That assumes that 'commissioners' are intelligent. If so, why are they not required to have law degrees?

 

[ceara19]

You're kidding right? That assumes that 'commissioners' are intelligent. If so, why are they not required to have law degrees?

It doesn't take a law degree to know that if there is no garnishment order, there is no garnishment. Even if the Commissioner was to stupid to know that, the person in charge of payroll at the LLC should have.

 

[ezmarelda]

I assumed that there was a wage garnishment due to the fact that the Commissioner was stumped. If there was no garnishment order, the Commissioner shouldn't have been stumped by the situation.

you were correct in your assumtion...and this Commissioner has a law degree and a number of years working with DEA and Family Law I was impressed that he would openly admit he did not know the correct thing to do and insisted on continuing the case to make sure he did the right thing.