The non-custodial parent (NCP), Mr. Antalan’s testimony revealed that he is here today to contest the payment. The letter that he wrote of his disagreement is to show that the money does not belong to him; it belongs to his wife and his son. He stated that is the reason he is here today. Mobile County DHR representative’s testimony revealed that on March 23, 2981 the case open in the Non-TANF category. On July 1, 2003, the case went to court on the NCP’s motion to terminate the child support. The motion to terminate the child support was granted effective September 17, 2001 as a child, Christina, emancipated. The court granted an arrears judgement to the custodial parent (CP), Brenda Diamond, in the amount of $11,791.99 and an interest …show more content…
May 6, 2015 Mr. Antalan motion to modify. The motion was granted and the payback was set at $50.00 per month, effective June 1, 2015. On August 31, 2015, DHR received an email from the hearing officer indicating that the NCP requests an administrative hearing. A spreadsheet was completed to confirm the arrears and the interest balance. The spreadsheet and copy of the order were forwarded to the hearing officer and the Lien Unit. On September 8, 2015, DHR received an email from the hearing officer indicated that the administrative hearing was scheduled for October 27, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. The representative stated that is it for the county office. The State Department of Human Resources (SDHR) representative’s revealed that on June 24, 2015, the FIDM levy package was produced and sent to the NCP. On June 30, 2015, the Lien Unit received an administrative review request for a joint account. On July 16, 2015, the Lien Unit contacted the NCP and informed him that documents he provided do not prove that he does not make the deposits. The NCP was adamant that he does not work so none of the deposits belongs to him. The representative …show more content…
DHR’s response is as follows: A review was done at the NCP's request. The review has been completed and the funds proven to not belong to the NCP have been released. The representative stated that is all. The NCP commented that the Lien Unit has not returned his wife or his son’s money that they put a lien on and it is not fair. His son had money in their account since January, which is for school. He commented that he provide
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
In the United States today more than one-half of all marriages end in divorce. The purpose of this paper is to examine the reason why women have typically received custody of the children far more often than the fathers. In order to better understand child custody one must first examine how fathers have often times been left out of the picture, and conversely why mothers have had such hard times raising children on their own. This paper will first examine the perspective of a father who has lost custody of his children.
When past services are rendered with a promise to pay, the court may enforce the promise to pay. However in Dementas’s case, the service was rendered after the promise to pay. The court found that Dementas’s services were rendered with no expectation of payment from Tallas. Moral obligation was created after some courts found the ruling to be too harsh. Even if moral obligation was applied to Dementas’s case, the court found that Dementas performed all services without expecting any payments in
court but has not taken the next step to complete transformation by taking action. The
In August 2008, NFM sent the McCaulleys another invoice of $14,550 and told them that NFM did not have to honor the agreement, because of the pricing error and a provision concerning this error printed in the back of the invoices the McCaulleys received. NFM eventually refunded the deposit to the McCaulleys’ credit card without informing them. On September 26th 2008, the McCaulleys filed a complained to seek declaratory relief and damages on the basis that NFM breached the sales contract. On October 24th 2008, NFM answered that the pricing error clause on the invoices invalidated the complaint and the fact that Richard and Michelle took no action to retender the deposit led to the rescission of the contract. In April 27th 2012, the district court ruled in favor of NFM. The McCaulleys appealed, alleging that there were several errors in the trial court’s judgment regarding the terms and conditions in the parties’ sales contract.
The Board received a complaint on 04/02/2014 regarding patient Gloria Kinder from Dena Andrews who has a POA for health care matters on the patient. The complaint was regarding Dr. Negron taking over care of the patient after her primary care doctor retired. The complainant states that the doctor would not refill her potassium, did not do follow up labs, and would not care for the patient.
Katherine was payed March 10, Katherine then cashed the check, which was made out to the amount of $550, only $525 was required. Katherine had no valid reason to file this motion, however my motion is for change in custody and child
Order Confirming Appraisal Award and Granting Preaward Interest dated July 11, 2014 in litigation entitled John A. Stauber and Kelly Leustek v. Amer. Family Mut. Ins. Co., St. Louis Cty. Dist. Ct., No.
Madison County DHR’s testimony revealed that this case opened in February 2008; the custodial parent (CP), Tekisha Triplett, requested paternity and the establishment of an order for child support. At the time, the non-custodial parent (NCP), Nelson Pierce, resided in the State of Missouri. In December 2009, on the behalf of Alabama the State of Missouri issued a child support order.
Court will be announced. I believe that the case should be held at a later date
I am writing in regards to the proof of child support payments you requested. It has come to my attention that Roy Frederick has not been making the payments and therefore have no proof of child support payments. I however would like to proceed with the process of my application.
He had a claim on file with four separate insurance companies against loss and he filed proof of loss with these companies. His claims were rejected, so he hired two attorneys to represent him. Carter and Topping, acting on his behalf, instituted four separate actions with the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of North Carolina. These actions were instituted by registered mail, as was the local custom. The insurance companies each filed motions to dismiss arguing that the Commissioner acted without authority as it accepted the claims filed by mail. Statute required that summonses be served by personal delivery, and did not authorize service by
But, your office, specifically Insp Maffei sent a certified letter on April 21st to 2 silversmith lane, Levittown informing them of the violation. The certified tracking number was 70121640000187946026
On February 17, 2017, I called Crystal Haas, about a local transaction request (LTR) that I submitted for disposition of receipts for the Non-custodial refunded (NCP) escrow. The LTR was marked by SMI worker as being completed, but receipt were still in NCP refund escrow.
Family Law (Law Express) 2th edition, by Jonathon Herring, published by Pearson Education Limited 2009