Ok, here is my stupid question.

We got a court order for CS, wages taken directly from his check.

For whatever reason, he wrote me a check. He said he hadn't checked with his boss about garnishment.

Five days later, a check comes from the state disbursement.

Do I have to give the money from the first check back?

I was planning on it, because I don't want to cause a problem, and I think MORALLY, the answer is yes. But what about legally?

We had the order established, all the paperwork was filed. What it comes down to is, he was too lazy to check with his lawyer, his boss or the disbursement unit to see WHEN the garnishment would take effect. So he wrote me a check. He was not court ordered to write this check, he just did it. Could that be considered a gift? The order went into effect on April 22, and he wrote this check on May 15.

Honestly, I am planning on giving the money back, but my husband and I are in disagreement about what would happen if I did NOT give it back. Would it be considered an overpayment, or would it be considered a gift since he wrote the check on his own (I did not ask, the court did not tell him to do it, and as far as I can tell, his lawyer did not tell him to do it either)?

Side note, he has not yet ASKED for the money back. Should I wait?

You know what needs to be done just do it

The "Golden Rule" is always the best answer... treat him like you'd want to be treated. Be glad he's willingly eager to make sure his financial support is given...you're lucky in that regard.

You know what needs to be done just do it

You know what? This answer blows.

Sorry, but it is completely unhelpful in regard to the LEGAL question I asked. I do NOT know what legally needs to be done, and therefore cannot just do it. You did not answer my question.

I'm not asking for the moral route, I pretty clearly explained that I already am planning on giving the money back. The question was, am I legally required to do so? And either way, should I hand it back, or wait to be asked?

As far as the answers that I shold do it for apparent moral reasons, why the hell is it my moral duty to give $300 back to a man who refused to support a child for the first 6 years of his life? He's not eager to do anything. He hasn't established his visitation yet, and is afriad to screw it up, even though CS and visitation are not the same. He doesn't want to be repremanded in court.

Maybe your question blows!? Why would it be legal to take a double CS payment? You already stated you pretty much know the moral answer its usually the correct legal reposnse as well. Even if it is somehow legal to keep it why do so and set poor example for your children and give possible cause for Dad to take court action on you?

Maybe your question blows!? Why would it be legal to take a double CS payment? You already stated you pretty much know the moral answer its usually the correct legal reposnse as well.

No I didn't. I actually SPECIFICALLY said I did not know. That's why I asked. You'll notice if you re-read it that I did not say that.

Even if it is somehow legal to keep it why do so and set poor example for your children and give possible cause for Dad to take court action on you?

Why would you bring my kids into it like that? Because I said your answer blows? I suppose you haven't read a lot of my responses in the past, becuase I was being sarcastic. The answer did blow, as it did not address the legal question asked.

How is taking money that he handed me, even though he KNEW his wages were being garnished, a bad example for my children? And why does he have a case for legal action? Do you know what the legal answer is, or are you guessing?

Maybe your question blows!? Why would it be legal to take a double CS payment? You already stated you pretty much know the moral answer its usually the correct legal reposnse as well. Even if it is somehow legal to keep it why do so and set poor example for your children and give possible cause for Dad to take court action on you?

And again, read my post. I never said I was going to keep it. I specifically said the opposite. I was looking to see if I was legally REQUIRED to give it back. That was the legal question. You answered it from a moral standpoint.

So I'll address what you asked: why would it be legal to take a double CS payment?

My question: What makes it a double CS payment? He knew his wages were being garnished, but wrote me a personal check anyway. Based on what you are saying, if he were to get a bonus at work and hand some of it to me, I wouldn't be able to accept it.

His own statements of not knowing the status of garnishment strongly suggest this is a CS payment. Why should Dad pay double? Now if Dad allows you to keep monies (does not ask for them back) then its a gift. How legal is this depends on Dad. No one but you and Dad are aware this extra money is now in your purse. If Dad complains then I would suggest returning it (which we already agree is morally correct) if he doesnt or doesnt care then its a gift. So are you going to jail if you keep it no. Best Dad could do is sue you for the money. Now do you have your legal answer!? I might add if somehow the correct people are informed he wrote you a check they could stop garnishment and that could mean CS payments could be late missing etc. After all there must be a reason his wages were garnished

I agree that what is morally right is typically legally right... Maybe it's true that the "real answer" is unknown. I would assume the individual judge who hears the case would make the decision on what you should have done with the money.

If your child walked out of Walmart with a candybar they hadn't paid for, would it be the fault of the cashier for not noticing? Would it be the fault of the security gates for not being set to alarm over chocolate?

Our children learn what they live. There's enough corruption in this world without our adding to it. Do the right thing. It will set a good example to your children and it will show the court you're reasonable. Two wrongs don't make it right... even if he hasn't been the ideal, or most supportive parent, that shouldn't make you feel you have a right to behave poorly too.

His own statements of not knowing the status of garnishment strongly suggest this is a CS payment. Why should Dad pay double? Now if Dad allows you to keep monies (does not ask for them back) then its a gift. How legal is this depends on Dad. No one but you and Dad are aware this extra money is now in your purse. If Dad complains then I would suggest returning it (which we already agree is morally correct) if he doesnt or doesnt care then its a gift. So are you going to jail if you keep it no. Best Dad could do is sue you for the money. Now do you have your legal answer!? I might add if somehow the correct people are informed he wrote you a check they could stop garnishment and that could mean CS payments could be late missing etc. After all there must be a reason his wages were garnished

First, I feel absolutley positively safe that I will not be going to jail over $300. Even if he took me to court over it. That's just unrealistic.

I don't understand your last two statements. Why would the state stop garnishment becuase Dad wrote me a personal check one time? His wages are garnished because it's the law, at least in Illinois.

1st because doesnt need to pay twice
2nd Because State may feel Dad is going to pay direct to avoid garnishment

I agree that what is morally right is typically legally right... Maybe it's true that the "real answer" is unknown. I would assume the individual judge who hears the case would make the decision on what you should have done with the money.

If your child walked out of Walmart with a candybar they hadn't paid for, would it be the fault of the cashier for not noticing? Would it be the fault of the security gates for not being set to alarm over chocolate?

Our children learn what they live. There's enough corruption in this world without our adding to it. Do the right thing. It will set a good example to your children and it will show the court you're reasonable. Two wrongs don't make it right... even if he hasn't been the ideal, or most supportive parent, that shouldn't make you feel you have a right to behave poorly too.


You are equating stealing something from a store with keeping money that was handed to me in a check with my name on it. Why is that behaving poorly? And again, why am I being spoken to as if I am running off to the river boat with this money. I already said I was giving it back. I just wanted to know if I was legally required to do so, which no one has actually answered. Your statement about me feeling that I have the right to behave a certain way is off base, since I wasn't doing anything that would be construed as behaving poorly.

He didn't tell me to hold off on cashing the check, and he hasn't asked for it back.

What I am basically being told is confirmation that he gets to keep on doing what he does. For years, he has gotten away with whatever he wants, and pleads ignorance each and every time. This is no different. he gets to complain that he "just didn't know" and not take responsibiltiy for something as easy as checking with his employer to see if his wages were garnished.

I already said I was giving it back

so why are we having this debate?

1st because doesnt need to pay twice
2nd Because State may feel Dad is going to pay direct to avoid garnishment

1. the state's job is to garnish his wages. Based on what you are saying, he could write me a $50 check, turn around and tell the state that he is paying on his own, and the state would drop his case. If it worked like that, parents would be avoiding garnishment left and right. That loop hole does not exist.

2. There is no direct payment allowed in Illinois. All court ordered CS goes through the state disbursment. Parents who owe support cannot avoid garnishment here unless they work under the table or constantly switch jobs.

Ok then. However if your giving it back this entire question and debate were pointless

so why are we having this debate?

Because, as I said in my first post, my husband and I are in disagreement about whether giving it back is a legal issue. Am I LEGALLY required to give the money back? So I asked. On a website designed to ask such legal questions. Crazy, I know.

I'm not debating anything. I'm just waiting for the answer.

Ok then. However if your giving it back this entire question and debate were pointless

YOU are the one debating. I never debated whether it should or shouldn't be given back. I asked if I was legally required to do so, then asked clarifying questions to your repsonses.

You seemingly got so caught up in the idea that I was doing something WRONG, you never answered the legal question and turned it into a moral debate. I still don't know the legal answer.

I gave you a legal answer. If you fail to return it and Dad wants to he can sue you for it. You are not entitled to more support than court ordered. Now if Dad lets you keep check fine its not support its a gift

I gave you a legal answer. If you fail to return it and Dad wants to he can sue you for it. You are not entitled to more support than court ordered. Now if Dad lets you keep check fine its not support its a gift

See, here's my CLARIFYING question (not debate).

WHY is it considered double support? And based on what law can he sue me for it?

We had a court order put into effect almost a full month before he wrote the check that stated that his wages would be garnished. If BOTH checks came from disburment, then yes, it would have been garnished incorrectly. But they didn't. He wrote one and handed it to me. He didn't ask me to not cash it, or to hold onto it, or to give it back if I got something from the state. He handed it to me.

Why is his ignorance of the amount of his own paycheck an excuse? If this were a criminal case, ignornace would not be a defense. The issue my husband and I were having is, can you LEGALLY ask for something back based on the fact that you were ignorant about what you were doing when you gave the money. And if so, does that mean if I put $50 in the Salvation Army bucket, and I meant to put in $5, can I sue the Salvation Army and win based on the fact that I gave when I shouldn't have?

What I am getting at is, based on what you are saying, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a parent to provide extra cash to the other parent.

We are splitting hairs here. Your own post suggests Dad was not aware if garnishment took place yet. He gave you a check (doing the right thing) to pay support. His arguement in a possible suit could be you did not deserve two support payments in one month( double what support order says). He gave you check not knowing his wages were already attached. He then ( in this fictional tale) request monies returned you refuse. He then sues. Ok but again this is all pointless as you say yourself you intend to return check to him.

You know what? This answer blows.

Sorry, but it is completely unhelpful in regard to the LEGAL question I asked. I do NOT know what legally needs to be done, and therefore cannot just do it. You did not answer my question.

I'm not asking for the moral route, I pretty clearly explained that I already am planning on giving the money back. The question was, am I legally required to do so? And either way, should I hand it back, or wait to be asked?

As far as the answers that I shold do it for apparent moral reasons, why the hell is it my moral duty to give $300 back to a man who refused to support a child for the first 6 years of his life? He's not eager to do anything. He hasn't established his visitation yet, and is afriad to screw it up, even though CS and visitation are not the same. He doesn't want to be repremanded in court.

Because the law has determined what amount you are allowed to collect per month.

In these cases, the high road is the only road. I recommend muddying the water with the whole, "she takes money she isn't entitled to" argument.

We are splitting hairs here.

The law is designed to be firm. Getting to the answers may take some time, but when it comes down to it, legal answers are generally YES and NO. It may seem like I am splitting hairs, but that is irrelevant to what the legal issue is. One side of that hair is the correct legal answer.

Your own post suggests Dad was not aware if garnishment took place yet. He gave you a check (doing the right thing) to pay support. His arguement in a possible suit could be you did not deserve two support payments in one month( double what support order says).

I did not get DOUBLE support in one month. He pays twice monthly. He wrote me a check, then I recieved a check from the state. How is he "doing the right thing?" Not morally, but legally? Why is it the right thing to write a check rather than check with your boss to see if your wages were garnished?

He gave you check not knowing his wages were already attached. He then ( in this fictional tale) request monies returned you refuse. He then sues. Ok but again this is all pointless as you say yourself you intend to return check to him.

Again, why is that MY responsibility? Not knowing that his wages were being garnished is a result of his own ignorance. He signed the paperwork dated in April for the garnishment. How can he LEGALLY argue that he didn't know his wages were being garnished? On what basis can he sue? That his ignorance caused him to write a check he shouldn't have written? And that will hold up in court?



I realize my stupid issue is pointless to you, but it is not to me. If you think it is so pointless, then don't respond. But I don't respond to any of your posts that your questions are pointless. I don't know what you have felt compelled to tell me that multiple times. To you it is pointless. To me, not so much.

I was planning on it, because I don't want to cause a problem, and I think MORALLY, the answer is yes.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression you were still "thinking" about the moral rightness.

If he does go to court about the issue... I would imagine the evidence of... the check being written for the same amount as child support, and the timliness of it in regard to the new court order would make it fairly obvious that he was trying to cover his bases (obligation of cs), not trying to give an additional gift. But again, the individual judge who would hear the case would make that decision.

"I was planning on it, because I don't want to cause a problem, and I think MORALLY, the answer is yes."

I'm sorry, I was under the impression you were still "thinking" about the moral rightness.

If he does go to court about the issue... I would imagine the evidence of... the check being written for the same amount as child support, and the timliness of it in regard to the new court order would make it fairly obvious that he was trying to cover his bases (obligation of cs), not trying to give an additional gift. But again, the individual judge who would hear the case would make that decision.

Because the law has determined what amount you are allowed to collect per month.

In these cases, the high road is the only road. I recommend muddying the water with the whole, "she takes money she isn't entitled to" argument.

Yes, I will continue to split hairs...

While you are correct that the amount of support is pre-determined, that SAME amount has already been sent through disbursment.

What I am saying is, he never should have written the check. Could it be argued that by writing a check even thogh he was aware he was being garnished, that the personal check could be LEGALLY considered a gift?

And if I can be totally honest and self serving, what I really want is the satisfaction that when I give him the money back, I am doing it because it is the right thing to do, but if I wanted to, I could keep it.

Does that make sense? It is completely a non-legal issue, but I want the personal satifaction of knowing that once again, he screwed up and I took the high road when I didn't have to.

So yes, I clearly want people to tell me that legally I do not HAVE to give it back, for my own selfish reasons. And also to win a bet with my husband.

Not really you state your self when he gives you check that he is unsure about garnishment. This suggest its CS especailly (as stated) it in same amount as support payment

Not really you state your self when he gives you check that he is unsure about garnishment. This suggest its CS especailly (as stated) it in same amount as support payment

But that answer does not fulfill my self serving neediness.

When it comes to hurting Exs or self serving there are no winners and no correct answers. I too have an Ex who has not paid one dime in almost ten years. If she happened to pay and pay twice I would not for one mila second keep it or think about keeping it for two reasons (there are more)

1. I set example for my children

2. I donot want to give her another tool to attempt another arguement

When it comes to hurting Exs or self serving there are no winners and no correct answers. I too have an Ex who has not paid one dime in almost ten years. If she happened to pay and pay twice I would not for one mila second keep it or think about keeping it for two reasons (there are more)

1. I set example for my children

2. I donot want to give her another tool to attempt another arguement

I understand what you are saying, but again, you are attatching a moral issue to a legal question. It's not about whether I think it is or is not morally right to keep it. It's about whether I have a legal right to keep something based on the fact that he wrote me the check out of pure ignorance.

I disagree that there are no winners when it comes to being self-serving. We do lots of things every day that are self serving. We choose clothes that most flatter our figures, we choose where we will go for lunch/dinner breaks based on what we feel like, heck, plenty of people give to charity becuase doing something good makes them FEEL good. I mean, I had kids becuase I wanted to be a mother. That alone was pretty self serving.

If I wanted a certain answer so that I could rub it in his face, that would be one thing. But I just want to know. And in all honesty, I still don't understand WHY writing a check on your own after your CS order was put in place by the court would be considered making a double payment. It seems to me that if that is true, then it would also be true that being ignorant of your responsibilites makes it ok to screw them up.

The Thing That I Would Do Is Contact The Illinois State Disbursement Unit And Let Them Know That He Made A Payment Right To You And Send A Copy Of The Check So He Can Get Credit For!

The Thing That I Would Do Is Contact The Illinois State Disbursement Unit And Let Them Know That He Made A Payment Right To You And Send A Copy Of The Check So He Can Get Credit For!

It doesn't work like that. The disbursement unit is not allowed to credit an account. They cannot stop garnishment for one pay period becuase he overpaid the last. The payment was already made. If he wants the money back, he has to do it through me. Also, he made the payment on his own. Disbursement was never even in the picture.

My Ex Paid Me Money That Was Not Coming Out Of His Check So I Had To Send Them A Copy And Then They Gave Him Credit For The Money If The Order Was Done In April And You Did Not Receive Money From Him Then He Owes You Them Back Weeks So It Would Not Actually Be A Credit They Would Take It Off The Money He Owes You !

And if I can be totally honest and self serving, what I really want is the satisfaction that when I give him the money back, I am doing it because it is the right thing to do, but if I wanted to, I could keep it.

Does that make sense? It is completely a non-legal issue, but I want the personal satifaction of knowing that once again, he screwed up and I took the high road when I didn't have to.

So yes, I clearly want people to tell me that legally I do not HAVE to give it back, for my own selfish reasons. And also to win a bet with my husband.

Okay, then let me put it this way.

You can no more ignore the judge's order on the amount of CS to collect per month as you can ignore the judge's order on the amount of visitation your ex is permitted per month.

These are not suggestions. They are court orders. As such, there is very little wiggle room.

Okay, then let me put it this way.

You can no more ignore the judge's order on the amount of CS to collect per month as you can ignore the judge's order on the amount of visitation your ex is permitted per month.

These are not suggestions. They are court orders. As such, there is very little wiggle room.

I understand all of this.

That said: I did not ask him for the check. He was not ordered to write it. He was not told to write it by his lawyer or my lawyer. He was IN COURT the day we made the agreement for the CS. He signed the disbursement order. He had full knowledge that money was going to be garnished out of his paycheck, yet still, he wrote me a check. It wasn't double garnishment. It was him writing a check. A check he was never ordered to write. Yes, there is not wiggle room in a court order. But there is no court order requiring him to write me a check.

When people are here BEFORE an order, we are constantly telling them that any money given outside of an order is considered a gift. Why is this different? The order is twice monthly garnishments. No where in the order (nor did I ask for) is it specified that ANY payments be made directly from him to me. He just gave me money. He gave me money OUTSIDE of the court order. Why do I have to give it back?

Based on what you just said, if the man hands me a $10 bill to get the kid a happy meal and a ride on the bouncy pony, I cannot accept it becuase it is outside the scope of the order. You are basically saying that I am barred from accepting money from him other than exact amounts of child support. Why? What law is this?

You have tunnel vision on this. Hubby stated when he gave you check he was not aware of status of garnishment. Check was in exact amount of support ordered. How can you assume this was anything other than a support payment? I know you say you intend to return check but based on your many posts on this thread I feel your looking for a means to keep it.

You have tunnel vision on this. Hubby stated when he gave you check he was not aware of status of garnishment. Check was in exact amount of support ordered. How can you assume this was anything other than a support payment? I know you say you intend to return check but based on your many posts on this thread I feel your looking for a means to keep it.

For starters, he is not now nor was he ever my "hubby."

You can "feel" all you want about me. I'm not looking for a reason to keep the money. I'm looking for a reason why it's legally required that I give it back. I'm sorry if my persistence on getting an answer that is based in law rather than just what is morally correct makes it look like I have an ulterior motive, but I cannot control how others perceive me. I am not greedy, I am simply persistent.

You say tunnel vision. Fine. I do have tunnel vision. I want to know WHY I am legally REQUIRED to give the money back. No one has explained to me WHY money he gave outside of the court order (that money will be garnished bi-monthly) was legally considered support, whether it was $5 or $5,000. Every answer I have gotten here is literally, "it just is." Why? And everyone has utterly ignored my question wondering if that means that I wouldn't be able to accept any OTHER money from him outside of the CS order, even a few dollars cash.

I don't assume what he gave me was anything other than support. It was. I'm sure he intended it that way. That wasn't the question. The question was, is it LEGALLY support, or LEGALLY a gift? No one can answer that specifically.


(wait for it)


And now that I got that out of my system, I now get to admit that while I complained about him being ignorant, I was being hypocritical. Upon further review (and a chat with my lawyer), he was supposed to give me a check. On May 1. Our attorneys aggred that he would make the first payment directly while the paperwork was being processed so that there wouldn't be a lapse. It was on the last page of the order.

Well, he gave it to me on May 15. Not May 1. May 15. He was late with his payment. I assumed since he gave it to me four days before I recieved the state check, then they were for the same pay period. I ASSumed incorrectly. The check was for the last pay period. The money is mine.

In addition, my lawyer could not say for certain -- if the original scenerio was the same -- if I would or would not have to give the money back. She said it could be argued successfully both ways, depending on the judge and attorneys.

I chatted with someone from court as well. Here was that response

everyone's belief when the money exchanged hands, therefore, if everyone was above board and understood this money was for the support payment, then she cannot 'double dip,' nor is she entitled to more money than she is court ordered to receive.

I understand all of this.

That said: I did not ask him for the check. He was not ordered to write it. He was not told to write it by his lawyer or my lawyer. He was IN COURT the day we made the agreement for the CS. He signed the disbursement order. He had full knowledge that money was going to be garnished out of his paycheck, yet still, he wrote me a check. It wasn't double garnishment. It was him writing a check. A check he was never ordered to write. Yes, there is not wiggle room in a court order. But there is no court order requiring him to write me a check.

When people are here BEFORE an order, we are constantly telling them that any money given outside of an order is considered a gift. Why is this different? The order is twice monthly garnishments. No where in the order (nor did I ask for) is it specified that ANY payments be made directly from him to me. He just gave me money. He gave me money OUTSIDE of the court order. Why do I have to give it back?

Based on what you just said, if the man hands me a $10 bill to get the kid a happy meal and a ride on the bouncy pony, I cannot accept it becuase it is outside the scope of the order. You are basically saying that I am barred from accepting money from him other than exact amounts of child support. Why? What law is this?

ya know what? Do what you want.

I am not going to argue the nuances of accepting a check and pretending you don't know the reason you got it was an error on his part.

You want a reason to screw your hubby or appear to have the upper hand when you throw it in his face.

Fine. You do that. Sleep well.

ya know what? Do what you want.

I am not going to argue the nuances of accepting a check and pretending you don't know the reason you got it was an error on his part.

You want a reason to screw your hubby or appear to have the upper hand when you throw it in his face.

Fine. You do that. Sleep well.

Seriously, again, why is was my question being ignored?

He's not my husabnd, never was. I've been on this site to two years, asking questions and helping out. I'm not some screw you woman just trying to throw anything into anyone's face. This answer, again, didn't address what I was asking. No one did. Everyone absolutely ignored my question and went of a "you're just trying to screw him over" binge. I sleep fine. I didn't do anything wrong.

Certianly I wanted to be told I had a point. So what? Why in the world did that turn me into some type of monster? No one gave me a reason why I would have to LEGALLY return the money, or why it wouldn't be considered a gift. I know it wasn't. It was support. That's why I was going to give it back. But do I legally have to? I still don't quite know. Heck, my own lawyer couldn't say definitively yes or no, although she strongly suggested it would be a bad idea, just becuase the possibility of losing is there. "It's a win-lose that probably woulnd't be worth it" was her actual response.

I'm not arguing, debating, or anything. I wasn't planning on keeping the money until the situation with the check actually CHANGED. Everyone was so enraged that I would even ask the question, they ignored it.

I chatted with someone from court as well. Here was that response

everyone's belief when the money exchanged hands, therefore, if everyone was above board and understood this money was for the support payment, then she cannot 'double dip,' nor is she entitled to more money than she is court ordered to receive.

Yes, this is what my attorney said too. She just said it could be argued successfully both ways, depending on judge and attorneys.

Guys, I was just asking a question. I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm not screwing this guy over, he's not my husband, I'm not looking for ways to throw anything in his face, I don't want to give him the proverbial finger as I hand him back his money. I just wanted to understand why he was allowed to just screw up over and over, even something this simple. It was par for the course, and I am irritated.

That said, I was wrong to begin with. But (dare I say it) I actually feel a little "attacked" (figuratively). It's hard to make people understand your point, but everyone ignored my LEGAL question until the last post by panther.

I think I have established a reputation as being pretty helpful, but it only took one question for everyone to turn. I like this site, and that bugs me a little. Sorry.

There was no "simple" legal answer but then you already knew that. You further kept info from us. Last and most important intentional or not your post suggested (to us anyways) that you wer elooking for a legal means to keep monies you were not entitled to. The simple solution was not a legal one it was a moral one you knew that. This was not a simple reply you knew that as well. The people here are volunteers they have lives. We dont have time to search or ocntact peope for right answers right away. I can tell you I sought out your legal answer right away but my court contact has a life outside of answering me. You have been her elong enough to know that as well as we react to things we think are not moral. Such was your case. Glad you got your answers can we mov eon?

The LEGALLY correct answer is that LEGALLY you are not required to return the check.

You already know the morally correct answer.

Can he sue you for overpayment? Yes. But until there is a court order requiring you to return the $300, you do not have to return it. It is a gift. He has to prove that it was not extra that he had sent in an effort to catch up on the missing 6 years or just because.

You NEVER have to return the actual check. Just don't deposit it.

You may want to frame it.:D

There was no "simple" legal answer but then you already knew that. You further kept info from us. Last and most important intentional or not your post suggested (to us anyways) that you wer elooking for a legal means to keep monies you were not entitled to. The simple solution was not a legal one it was a moral one you knew that. This was not a simple reply you knew that as well. The people here are volunteers they have lives. We dont have time to search or ocntact peope for right answers right away. I can tell you I sought out your legal answer right away but my court contact has a life outside of answering me. You have been her elong enough to know that as well as we react to things we think are not moral. Such was your case. Glad you got your answers can we mov eon?

What info did I keep from the board? I didn't hide anything.

I actually did not "know" what the answer was or if it was simple or not. If I had known, I never would have asked. And I simply cannot control the fact that some of you made a judgment about why I was asking when I clearly stated several times that I didn't intend to keep the money. Feel free to decide what you want about me. It still was unrealted to the question.

I didn't get a straight answer. I was not expecting anyone to stop their "lives" and help me. I didn't ask for a quick answer, or bump the thread to the top hoping to keep it active, or insist that I needed an answer and I needed it RIGHT NOW. My question could have sat unanswered if no one knew the legal answer. Instead, I got hit by the morality police over and over.

I don't understand your response of "we don't have time." What, you have plenty of time to tell me that I am doing something wrong (with no legal basis for saying it), but actually answering the question would be too time consuming? You either have time to respond or you don't. If you have time to form an opinion about me and express it multiple times, then you clearly have time to spend on my issue.

Not to mention 1. I now have a differing opinion, as posted by mommyof4 and 2. the whole issue is moot.

There is no "we" that needs to move on. You can move on whenever you want. You certianly don't have to post if you don't have the time or answers.

Intentional or not this is what you kept from us

he was supposed to give me a check. On May 1. Our attorneys aggred that he would make the first payment directly while the paperwork was being processed so that there wouldn't be a lapse. It was on the last page of the order.


but your right I do have better use of my time. You were given several legal answers and many moral ones. By myself and others. You have been here long enough to know this would happen. I had and gave answers they did not come quick because my contact has a life outside of talking to me. Again you were correct I dont have to post if I dont have time and I have wasted enough here

Intentional or not this is what you kept from us

he was supposed to give me a check. On May 1. Our attorneys aggred that he would make the first payment directly while the paperwork was being processed so that there wouldn't be a lapse. It was on the last page of the order.

but your right I do have better use of my time. You were given several legal answers and many moral ones. By myself and others. You have been here long enough to know this would happen. I had and gave answers they did not come quick because my contact has a life outside of talking to me. Again you were correct I dont have to post if I dont have time and I have wasted enough here

Re-read the post where I wrote that.

I absolutley did NOT keep it from anyone, intentionally or unintentionally. I was misinfomred. I posted it and said, well, now I'm a hypocrite becuase I blamed him for being ignorant when I was too! I posted that to say, hey guys, my question is totally moot becuase I was wrong about the situation when I posted to begin with. I wasn't withholding a fact. I posted that because I am actually an honest person. I could have just kept it to myself that I made a mistake, but I didn't.

How can you possibly be unintentionally keeping something from someone if you don't know it is there? According to your logic, I could accuse every poster of unintentionally keeping info from the site for not posting information that they don't have, that they are confused about or that they simply are not clear on.

Clearly you didn't have time for this, becuase you apparently did not READ my posts, but rather skimmed them, formed opinions and posted them.

I was not given legal answers. I was told "you just can't do that" with nothing even closely resembling a legal backing to support it. Nothing. Zero. Zip. It was two pages of "you can't do that" before you gave me the opinion of your lawyer, followed by mommyof4's opposite opinion.

Had I NOT talked to my lawyer and found out that I was wrong about the check to begin with, there's still no clear LEGAL reason why I would have had to return the money.

Why the personal attacks? She asked a simple question and was clear in her intentions. She never once said she was keeping the money. She simply asked if she was LEGALLY required to return the money (which she is NOT, at least not until he sues in court for the $300 and wins.)

It seems that a few of us (myself included sometimes when I get particularly frustrated with some moro...oops, person in need of assistance) are very quick to jump all over somebody. This shouldn't be a free for all. It would be very nice if everyone would take a deep breath and actually think about what you are posting before you hit that final little button.

This question wasn't that big of an issue and it's not an uncommon question.

I'll go ahead and tell you what I told MoB in a PM. My ex committed tax fraud. In a misguided effort to save his butt, he sent me a check for the difference that he 'stole' from my husband (it was corrected in the end, so we did get the money owed back. Remember, I don't work. My husband supports this family, including my oldest daughter). You bet I cashed his check and when he got dinged by CSE and his corrected refund was intercepted, I kept that too. He talked to an atty about how he could force me to refund his 'overpayment'. The atty laughed at him. Now, my ex is so far behind in CS, he'll never catch up. But still, I did get a personal check that was not considered 'child support'. I kept the damn money. CSE was aware that he had sent me a personal check and my caseworker and his supervisor both told me it was my choice as to wheter or not I would cash the check or not.

There is absolutely no law or statute that states that a parent ordered to pay CS may not pay more than is legally required.

MoB clearly stated she had every intention of refunding the money. Obviously, her moral compass points a little closer to north than mine. That is her choice. It is NOT a legal requirement...the answer to her question.

Why the personal attacks? She asked a simple question and was clear in her intentions. She never once said she was keeping the money. She simply asked if she was LEGALLY required to return the money (which she is NOT, at least not until he sues in court for the $300 and wins.)

It seems that a few of us (myself included sometimes when I get particularly frustrated with some moro...oops, person in need of assistance) are very quick to jump all over somebody. This shouldn't be a free for all. It would be very nice if everyone would take a deep breath and actually think about what you are posting before you hit that final little button.

This question wasn't that big of an issue and it's not an uncommon question.

I'll go ahead and tell you what I told MoB in a PM. My ex committed tax fraud. In a misguided effort to save his butt, he sent me a check for the difference that he 'stole' from my husband (it was corrected in the end, so we did get the money owed back. Remember, I don't work. My husband supports this family, including my oldest daughter). You bet I cashed his check and when he got dinged by CSE and his corrected refund was intercepted, I kept that too. He talked to an atty about how he could force me to refund his 'overpayment'. The atty laughed at him. Now, my ex is so far behind in CS, he'll never catch up. But still, I did get a personal check that was not considered 'child support'. I kept the damn money. CSE was aware that he had sent me a personal check and my caseworker and his supervisor both told me it was my choice as to wheter or not I would cash the check or not.

There is absolutely no law or statute that states that a parent ordered to pay CS may not pay more than is legally required.

MoB clearly stated she had every intention of refunding the money. Obviously, her moral compass points a little closer to north than mine. That is her choice. It is NOT a legal requirement...the answer to her question.

This is good to know. In the event a miracle of God occurs and my ex sends me extra money above and beyond the $10,000 + he's already behind, I will take the check to the bank and hope it doesn't bounce. :)

OP - I understood your question but didn't have a legal answer for you. :) I wish I had the kind of morals you do. After everything I went through just to get safe from the man I would have serious trouble giving the money back even if I knew morally I should. :)

I understand all of this.

That said: I did not ask him for the check. He was not ordered to write it. He was not told to write it by his lawyer or my lawyer. He was IN COURT the day we made the agreement for the CS. He signed the disbursement order. He had full knowledge that money was going to be garnished out of his paycheck, yet still, he wrote me a check. It wasn't double garnishment. It was him writing a check. A check he was never ordered to write. Yes, there is not wiggle room in a court order. But there is no court order requiring him to write me a check.

When people are here BEFORE an order, we are constantly telling them that any money given outside of an order is considered a gift. Why is this different? The order is twice monthly garnishments. No where in the order (nor did I ask for) is it specified that ANY payments be made directly from him to me. He just gave me money. He gave me money OUTSIDE of the court order. Why do I have to give it back?

Based on what you just said, if the man hands me a $10 bill to get the kid a happy meal and a ride on the bouncy pony, I cannot accept it becuase it is outside the scope of the order. You are basically saying that I am barred from accepting money from him other than exact amounts of child support. Why? What law is this?

The correct LEGAL answer is this: You are under no LEGAL obligation to return the money at this time. However, if you cash the check your ex could take the canceled check to the CSE and request to be given credit for the payment. In most situations like this, the NCP is given credit and it stays on the record as an overpayment, but it will not result in him having less garnished one time.

It is true that anything paid outside of a court order is considered to be a gift, however, it is equally true that a NCP is legally required to make payments until a garnishment is started. If your court order does not specifically state that all payments must be by garnishment, your ex has a very valid reason to request the money back, or a credit against the account.

Beyond the legal though, look at it this way- although you are not required to return the money, if you do, or if you request that he be given credit for the payment, you could be fostering a better future of payments for yourself. The one thing that most NCP's hate is when they pay and don't recieve credit for it. Over time, some NCP's become angry and later decide to not pay at all. Personally, I believe that the old saying- "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar" is true. It extends to CS situations too, by being understanding and fair to a NCP, you will be more likely to recieve consistant payments in the future because the NCP will know they are being treated fairly.

MomofBoys...no wonder you are divorced. Give the check back. It doesn't matter if it's LEGALLY required. Are you really qualified to raise children? You make me sick. I feel sorry for both your children and your ex-husband. Shut up already.

MomofBoys...no wonder you are divorced. Give the check back. It doesn't matter if it's LEGALLY required. Are you really qualified to raise children? You make me sick. I feel sorry for both your children and your ex-husband. Shut up already.


1. I'm not divorced. I said that twice.
2. My plan, as posted, was to give it back, until I discovered it actually was not a double payment, it was a late payment. I am not giving it back.
3. Legally, yes, it does matter. I'm not legally required to give to the poor. It's nice if I do, but it's not legally required.
4. There is no legal or moral qualifier for parenthood, so technically speaking, no one is "qualified."
5. Pepperments help with nausea. Feed a fever, starve a cold.
6. My children are flourishing. My ex-husband is non-existant.
7. I am not speaking, I am typing.


I love a good troll. You hit all the right topics in one short post. To the point, direct, inflammatory, and of course, the "you make me sick" reference. Nice. Well done.

My plan, as posted, was to give it back, until I discovered it actually was not a double payment, it was a late payment. I am not giving it back.

Look at it as an early payment, if you do not want to look at it as a late payment.

I actually had a job where I was paid my salary in advance of the work month.

Either way he did not pay for many years, so take the boys out for a day on their father.

:D If you respond to trolls, it makes them happy. ;)