Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

In 1996 the State sued Defendant Troy Wolff, seeking to establish his paternity and obtain a child support order after the mother and child began receiving public assistance. The court also established a child support obligation for Defendant. The mother was given custody of the child. In 1999 Defendant and the mother stipulated to a reduction of Defendant's child support obligation, and an amended judgment was entered incorporating the stipulation. The State was a party to the action and signed the 1999 stipulation. In January 2009, Defendant and the mother entered into another stipulation pertaining to custody and visitation, and they agreed to modify the child support obligation. The parties agreed that Defendant would no longer have a support obligation to the mother, and that Defendant would not seek support from the mother. The court entered a second amended judgment incorporating the new stipulation. In October 2009, the State moved to vacate the second amended judgment, arguing that it was a party to the action and did not agree to the new stipulation. Defendant argued on appeal that the judicial referee did not have jurisdiction to issue the order to vacate the second amended judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the State was a real party in interest and had standing, the second amended judgment contains unenforceable provisions, and the court did not err in vacating the second amended judgment.

Respondent Alan Cote appealed a family court's garnishment order that directed the Social Security Administration to withhold his Social Security benefits to offset alimony arrearages. On appeal, Respondent contended that the garnishment order violated a provision of the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act which imposes a cap on the percentage of aggregate disposable earnings that any court, state or federal, may garnish. While the trial court garnished only Respondent's Social Security disability benefits and not his veterans' disability benefits, the court did include the latter in its calculation of aggregate disposable earnings.  This broad calculation of disposable earning increased the percentage of Respondent's Social Security payments subject to garnishment.  Respondent contended that as defined and excluded from such a calculation by federal law, his particular veterans' disability benefits were not to be counted as earnings because they were not paid for a service related disability and are not received in lieu of retirement payments to which he would otherwise be entitled as earnings.  Upon review of the lower court's record and calculations, the Supreme Court agreed, reversed the lower court's order and remanded the case for recalculation of the garnishment.

Appellant Essie Simmons and Respondent Rubin Simmons divorced in 1990. The parties entered into a settlement agreement that was approved by the family court. Central to the agreement was the requirement that Mr. Simmons give Ms. Simmons a half or third of his Social Security benefits, depending on his age when he retired. When he retired, Mr. Simmons did not pay his ex-wife. She sued, but the family court declined to hear the complaint, finding that it could not hear a case that primarily dealt with Social Security benefits. Mr. Simmons appealed the dismissal, and the appellate court reversed. The court voided the division of Mr. Simmons' benefits, holding that the Social Security Act specifically precluded parties from dividing benefits under the settlement agreement. Because the agreement was partly voided by the court, Ms. Simmons sought to reopen the matter entirely. The family court dismissed again, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the agreement. On appeal, the Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether the family court could revisit the now partially voided agreement. Upon careful review of the arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court held that "basic principles of equity suggest[ed] that all issues should be revisited by the family court." The Court recognized the practical difficulties confronting the family court, but the Court noted, "that challenge pales in comparison to [Mr. Simmons'] suggestion that we simply end this matter with the remnant of the agreement remaining valid." The Court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case to the family court for further proceedings.

Petitioner Richard Lister appealed the recommendation of the Family Division Master that modified his child support obligations, and that refused to grant him credit for Social Security benefits received by his adult son. The son lives with his mother, Marianne Lister, and receives Supplemental Social Security (SSI) income of approximately $450 per month. As a disabled adult, the son is eligible for child support so long as he remains dependent. The sonâs SSI is reduced by the amount of child support he receives. In 2010, Mrs. Lister requested an increase in child support from Mr. Lister. At that time, Mr. Lister argued that he should receive a dollar for dollar credit for the sonâs SSI benefits when considering how much more he should be obliged to pay. The case Mr. Lister relied on to make his âcreditâ argument depended on the parentâs status as either retired or disabled. In this case, the son receives SSI benefits because of his own disability. The family division modified the child support obligation and refused to give Mr. Lister âcreditâ in the amount of his sonâs SSI benefits. On appeal, Mr. Lister argues that the family division made a mistake in reaching its decision to modify his support obligation. The Supreme Court agreed with the family divisionâs analysis of Mr. Listerâs case, and affirmed the divisionâs decision.

Robert and Candy Smith are the parents of a developmentally disabled child, Justan. In April, 2009, Mrs. Smith filed an appointment petition in the Probate Court to become Justan's sole guardian and conservator. The court set forth a schedule where visitation rights were divided equally between the parents. Mr. Smith intentionally prevented his wife from having her scheduled visits with Justan in June, 2009. Mrs. Smith subsequently filed a motion for contempt. The Probate Court held hearings both on the guardianship petition and Mrs. Smithâs motion for contempt. Over her ex-husband's objection, the court admitted testimonial reports from the guardian ad litem. As a result, the Probate Court entered a judgment appointing the former Mrs. Candy Smith and Mr. Smithâs new wife, Christine, as co-guardians of Justan. Christine was to become Justanâs sole conservator. The Probate Court erroneously ordered, as part of the judgment, that at least $200 per month from Justanâs social security insurance benefits be deposited into a bank account that named as account holders Justan, Christine and the former Mrs. Smith. Mr. Smiith filed a motion for findings and conclusions of law. The court complied and issued an amended judgment containing minor changes. Mr. Smith appealed. The Supreme Court found that the portion of the Lower Courtâs decision pertaining to the fore-mentioned $200 monthly deposit conflicted with Federal statues and regulations. Mr. Smith was vested with a discretionary authority to execute Justin's social security insurance monies. The Court vacated this portion of the Probate Courtâs judgment and affirmed the remainder.