DECISION, FINDINGS OF FACT& ORDER AFTER INQUEST The parties have one child-in-common, D.M.A. (hereinafter “D”). On May 14, 2024, the mother, M.H. (hereinafter “Mother” or “Ms. H”), filed a petition against the father, J.A. (hereinafter “Father” or “Mr. A”). See Pet. to Correct Income Withholding Order for Support Enforcement (H, 05/14/2024), Nassau County Family Court Docket Number F-11024-19/24D. On June 25, 2024, the parties were present and issue was joined. The matter was adjourned to July 17, 2024 at 12:00 P.M. for a conference. On July 17, 2024, only Ms. H appeared. Mr. A, who appeared virtually from Texas on the previous court date, failed to show in-person or virtually. He failed to contact the Court in any way, shape, form or fashion to let the Court know that he needed an adjournment, was running late, or had an emergency. There was no attorney present on his behalf. The matter proceeded to an inquest. After having considered the evidence and the law, the Court’s determination follows: THE EVIDENCE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Ms. H’s Testimony Ms. H testified that she filed to modify her child support obligation because she lost her job and she did not know how long it would take her to find other employment. She told the Court that through an agreement with Mr. A, her child support obligation was suspended for the time period between April 1, 2023 and October 31, 2023. She stated that she agreed to thereafter pay, directly to Mr. A, the $6,000.00 in arrears that had accumulated during the suspension period. Ms. H testified that during April and May of 2023, she continued to receive checks from her previous employer which were still being garnished for child support purposes. She told the Court that the Support Collection Unit accepted the payments even though her account was suspended. She stated that on November 1, 2023, her child support obligation was reinstated. She told the Court that by that time, she had paid Mr. A more than half of the arrears she owed to him by way of electronic transfer. Ms. H testified that she subsequently returned to Court to apply for a reduction of her child support obligation since she had been rehired by another company, but for less money. She told the Court that the parties agreed that she would receive a retroactive decrease of her child support obligation which caused her account to be overpaid. She stated that she has “gone in circles” trying to get answers about how her overpayment can be reimbursed to her, but she feels as though no one has been helpful to her. She asked for the Court’s assistance. Marlyna DeStefano’s Testimony Ms. H called Marlyna DeStefano to the stand. She told the Court that she works for the Department of Social Services as a Child Support Investigator who is assigned as a support liaison in Family Court. Ms. DeStefano testified that Ms. H’s child support obligation was suspended for the time period between April 1, 2023 and October 31, 2023. She told the Court that child support was collected from Ms. H’s paystubs during that time, but since there was a court order suspending child support, no money was disbursed to Mr. A. She stated that on November 1, 2023, child support payments resumed. Ms. DeStefano testified that according to the Support Collection Unit’s accounting, at that point Ms. H’s child support was overpaid by $1,196.91. She told the Court that pursuant to a court order, that sum was disbursed to Mr. A since Ms. H owed him arrears. Ms. DeStefano testified that thereafter, a court order was issued modifying Ms. H’s child support obligation from $1,197.00 monthly to $299.00 bi-weekly retroactive to November 27, 2023. She told the Court that due to that retroactive application, Ms. H’s child support was overpaid by the sum of $2,626.88. She stated that where child support monies have already been disbursed to a custodial parent, the Support Collection Unit is unable to return overpaid child support based upon a retroactive reduction. Jacqueline McLeod’s Testimony Ms. H called Jacqueline McLeod to testify on her behalf. She told the Court that she is a Child Support Investigator for the Department of Social Services who is assigned as a liaison to the Family Court. Ms. McLeod testified that Ms. H’s child support obligation was suspended for a period of time, but her employer continued to send child support to the Support Collection Unit. She told the Court that those garnishments were not released to Mr. A. She stated that once the suspension period was completed, Ms. H’s child support obligation resumed. Ms. McLeod testified that pursuant to a court order, Ms. H was then granted a retroactive decrease of her child support obligation. She told the Court that because Ms. H was entitled to an ex post facto reduction, her account became overpaid by the amount of $2,626.88. Ms. McLeod testified that it is the Support Collection Unit’s policy that overpaid child support cannot be returned to a payor where the money has already been paid to the custodial parent. She explained that since Ms. H is current with her child support payments due to a wage garnishment, there are no arrears in the parties’ account to which a credit may be applied. She told the Court that where such an issue exists, the Support Collection Unit advises the payor to file against the custodial parent for overpaid child support in Small Claims Court. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ms. H admitted a page from her Chase Bank Account Ending in 4605, along with emails between the parties, into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 1. Ms. H admitted her T-Mobile paystubs and Bank of America National Association pay stubs into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 2. Ms. H admitted the parties’ child support payment history, dated April 21, 2024, into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 3. Ms. H admitted the parties’ disbursement history, dated July 16, 2024, for the time period between April 1, 2023 and November 1, 2023, and a certified copy of the parties’ support obligation summary, dated July 17, 2024, into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4. Ms. H admitted the parties’ consent modified order, dated January 3, 2024, as issued by this Court, into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 5. Ms. H admitted the parties’ consent modified order, dated April 8, 2024, as issued by this Court, into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 6. Ms. H admitted a chart she created with her accounting of what she paid in child support, including what she alleged was an overpayment, into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 7. DISCUSSION Pursuant to strong public policy in New York State, it is well-settled that a party may not recoup support overpayments. See Johnson v. Chapin, 12 N.Y.3d 461, 466 (2009); see also Maria v. Ramadan, 219 A.D.3d 874, 875 (2d Dep’t 2023); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 192 A.D.3d 954, 956 (2d Dep’t 2021); Collette v. Collette, 188 A.D.3d 1047, 1048 (2d Dep’t 2020); Hart v. Rosenthal, 173 A.D.3d 695, 697 (2d Dep’t 2019); Fortgang v. Fortgang, 170 A.D.3d 963, 964 (2d Dep’t 2019); Goldstein v. Goldstein, 166 A.D.3d 729, 732 (2d Dep’t 2018); McGovern v. McGovern, 148 A.D.3d 900, 902 (2d Dep’t 2017) . The rationale behind the policy is that support is deemed to have been devoted for that specific important purpose, so no monies exist from which to recover funds if the award is thenceforth reversed or modified. See Collette, 188 A.D.3d at 1048; see also Hart, 173 A.D.3d at 697; Fortgang, 170 A.D.3d at 964; McGovern, 148 A.D.3d at 902. Child support overpayments may be reimbursed only under certain limited circumstances. See e.g. Maria, 219 A.D.3d at 875 (finding no exception to public policy rule against support recoupment); Collette, 188 A.D.3d at 1048 (same); Hart, 173 A.D.3d at 697 (citing cases); Fortgang, 170 A.D.3d at 964 (party failed to demonstrate exception to public policy against reimbursement for overpayment); Goldstein, 166 A.D.3d at 732 (same); McGovern, 148 A.D.3d at 901-02 (where parties stipulation permitted reduction of child support when one child attended college and father failed to file modification petition for decrease, no refund allowed); Weidner v. Weidner, 136 A.D.3d 1425, 1426-427 (4th Dep’t 2016) (recoupment appropriate where defendant’s income below poverty level and plaintiff held high-income job); Fitzgerald v. Alan W. Corps., 86 A.D.3d 611, 612 (2d Dep’t 2011) (finding support magistrate properly declined to award direct recoupment or restitution of support overpayments); People ex rel. Breitsein v. Aaronson, 3 A.D.3d 588, 589 (2d Dep’t 2003) (reimbursement permissible where Supreme Court improperly applied Child Support Standards Act); Thomas v. Comm’r of Soc. Servs., 287 A.D.2d 642, 642-43 (2d Dep’t 2001) (refund allowed where determinative proof that payor was not child’s biological father); Vigliotti v. Vigliotti, 260 A.D.2d 470, 471 (2d Dep’t 1999) (where overpayment occurs because payee conceals breach of conditions which would terminate payor’s obligation, rule against recovery does not apply). Child support overpayments may not be applied to future support payments. See Castelloe v. Fong, 203 A.D.3d 654, 655-56 (1st Dep’t 2022) (public policy forbids offsetting overpayments against basic child support); see also Armstrong, 192 A.D.3d at 956 (where party withheld child support in order to recoup overpayment, no exception to public policy; Supreme Court should have awarded payee with money withheld); Collette, 188 A.D.3d at 1048; Hart, 173 A.D.3d at 697; Goehringer v. Vozza-Nicolosi, 139 A.D.3d 949, 949-50 (2d Dep’t 2016); Maksimyadis v. Maksimyadis, 275 A.D.2d 459, 461 (2d Dep’t 2000). Child support overpayments may be credited against support arrears owed. See Maksimyadis, 275 A.D.2d at 461 (payor entitled to credit against retroactive support obligation for payments made after commencement of proceeding); see also Shi v. Lu, 110 A.D.3d 729, 730 (2d Dep’t 2013) (finding Support Magistrate properly offset child support arrears by father’s overpayment of child care expenses; father entitled to credit for overpayment he made retroactive to petition’s filing date); Taddonio v. Wasserman-Taddonio, 51 A.D.3d 935, 936 (2d Dep’t 2008) (father entitled to credit for direct payments made to mother for son against support collection unit arrears established). Such overpayments may also be used to offset add-on expenses. See Castelloe, 203 A.D.3d at 656 (payee’s argument that overpayment credit against future add-on expenses violates public policy found unavailing); Collette, 188 A.D.3d at 1048; Hart, 173 A.D.3d at 697; McGovern, 148 A.D.3d at 902; Shi, 110 A.D.3d at 730. The proof showed that Ms. H came to court for relief when she lost her job in 2023. The proof also showed that the parties agreed to suspend her child support obligation for the time period between April 1, 2023 and October 31, 2023. The proof further showed that the parties agreed that Ms. H would pay the $6,000.00 in arrears accumulated during that time period directly to Mr. A after such suspension period elapsed. The evidence established that Ms. H’s former employer continued to issue paychecks to her in April 2023 and May 2023 with funds withdrawn for child support. The evidence also established that the Support Collection Unit received those child support payments during the suspension period, but did not disburse them to Mr. A while the Court’s suspension order was in effect. The proof showed that Ms. H made a Zelle payment to Mr. A in the amount of $3,237.70 which he acknowledged in an email, leaving a balance of $2,762.30 owed directly to him. The proof also showed that the parties agreed that Ms. H’s child support overpayment of $1,196.91, as established by their Support Collection Unit account sheet, should be released to Mr. A towards the arrears she owed to him. The proof further showed that overpayment was disbursed to him pursuant to a court order. The evidence established that on November 27, 2023, Ms. H filed a petition seeking to reduce her child support obligation since she obtained a new job with a decreased salary. The evidence also established that the parties entered into an agreement modifying Ms. H’s child support obligation from $1,197.00 monthly to $299.00 bi-weekly retroactive November 27, 2023. The proof showed that the Support Collection Unit applied that reduction to the parties’ account, leaving Ms. H with an overpayment of $2,626.88. The proof also showed that the Support Collection Unit was unable to refund Ms. H’s overpayment since she was current with her child support obligation due to a garnishment. Based upon the evidence adduced at the inquest, the Court finds that Ms. H has failed to meet her burden of proving that an exception exists to this state’s strong public policy against recoupment of support overpayments. Thus, this Court is prohibited from ordering direct reimbursement of Ms. H’s overpayment or applying Ms. H’s overpayment towards future child support payments. Consistent with the law, this Court may order a credit, based upon her overpayment, against support arrears owed and/or may apply her overpayment as an offset to add-on expenses. Since Ms. H owed Mr. A $6,000.00 in past due child support arrears and she paid him $3,237.70 by way of electronic transfer and another $1,196.91 due to an overpayment in her Support Collection Unit account during the suspension period, she owes him a balance of $1,565.39 in past due arrears. The Court finds that portion of Ms. H’s overpayment shall be applied towards those remaining arrears. See id. Thus, Ms. H’s obligation to pay Mr. A the sum of $6,000.00 in past due child support arrears by direct payment is now satisfied. The Court further finds that Ms. H’s remaining overpayment sum in the amount of $1,061.49 shall be applied to offset any add-on expenses, such as educational expenses or unreimbursed medical expenses, that she owes or may owe prospectively. ADJUDGED, that based upon the evidence presented during the inquest, Ms. H has failed to meet her burden of proving that an exception exists to this state’s strong public policy against recoupment of support overpayments; and it is further, ADJUDGED, that this Court may not order direct reimbursement of Ms. H’s overpayment, or apply her overpayment towards future child support; and it is further, ADJUDGED, that this Court may order a credit of Ms. H’s overpayment against support arrears owed, and/or may apply her overpayment as an offset to add-on expenses; and it is therefore, ORDERED, that Ms. H’s child support overpayment in the amount of $2,626.88 shall be applied as follows: (1) $1,565.39 towards the balance of Ms. H’s past due support arrears due and owing to Mr. A by direct payment; and, (2) $1,061.49 towards offsetting any add-on expenses, such as educational expenses or unreimbursed medical expenses, that Ms. H owes or may owe prospectively. This constitutes the decision, opinion and order of the Court. YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY, AFTER COURT HEARING, RESULT IN YOUR COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR A TERM NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS FOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT OF COURT; YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSES, STATEISSUED PROFESSIONAL, TRADE, BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES AND RECREATIONAL AND SPORTING LICENSES AND PERMITS; AND IMPOSITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY LIENS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL BY WAY OF OBJECTION MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST. IF YOU WERE NOT IN COURT FOR THE HEARING, ANY CHALLENGE OR OBJECTION TO THIS ORDER MAY BE LIMITED TO THE FILING OF A MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER. Dated: August 5, 2024
