Saturday, January 12, 2008
COURT COSTS OR JUDICIAL HOLDUP?
The body of a South Carolina Family Court Form titled "Designation of Costs" states:
The body of a South Carolina Family Court Form titled "Designation of Costs" states:
I acknowledge that South Carolina Code Section 20-7-1440 requires that I pay and the Family Court has ordered that I pay court costs in an amount equal to five percent of any support payment made through the Clerk of Court or the centralized wage withholding system. I owe and will pay these costs in addition to my support obligation.To meet my duty to pay court costs, I designate an amount equal to five percent of the support payment I make to be applied and distributed in payment of court costs, not support.I authorize the Clerk of Court or, if payments are withheld from my income, the centralized wage withholding system to deduct the fee from every payment made by me or on my behalf.I acknowledge that should I not pay the full amount due, that an arrearage will accrue and that the Clerk of Court may fake enforcement action against me for failure to pay ail amounts ordered by the Court.
If an amendment to the law changes the amount of court costs, this designation authorizes deduction of court costs in the amount established by law.Done, this__________ day of____________ __. 20____ , at (City)(State)
Signature of Obligor
Printed Name of Obligor
IV-D Case ID:
SCCA 429
(11/05)
We have commented on this issue before and our opinion remains basically unchanged. For those who were originally Court-ordered to pay less than five (5%) percent, this looks like unlawful retroactive legislation. And in any event, because the amount being charged is a percentage of the amount being paid, it is readily apparent that the "fee" is not a Court Cost because it has no bearing to the cost of processing the check. Simply stated, the cost of an envelope and a stamp for a check in a large amount is the same as a the cost of an envelope and a stamp for a check in a large amount.
Can everyone say "arbitrary and capricious?" "Can everyone say "equal protection?"
Without a doubt, those who pay through the Family Court should pay adminstrative costs. However, when the amounts accessed bear no relationship to the costs incurred, an adjustment is in order.
Comments:
<< Home
I for one got into the SC Family Court system with a three percent clause in my child support order and never signed the form acknowledging the 5%, but I continue to pay it because I have no choice. I believe I am entitled to a refund. If you are in the same position, please post to this blog. It's time we let our legislators know we are not going to tolerate this inequity any longer.
# posted by 
: 8:13 AM
: 8:13 AM
After reading the proposed legislation 20-7-1440 (C) it poses a tremendous burden on employers to collect child support for the State. As a small business owner, I don't need any other impediments to growing my business and it is a disincentive to hiring employees that have child support obligations. What's next an equal rights clause that says I cannot discrimanate in my hiring practices because of the individual is divorced and has child support obligations. Enough is enough.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 7:34 AM
: 7:34 AM 
<< Home
