Maureen Lisko v. Michael Lisko (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter is before the court on the defendant's motion to determine the amount of the outstanding child support arrearage owed to the plaintiff (No. 124.00).   A hearing was held on November 14, 2013, at which time the court approved the parties' partial agreement pursuant to which they agreed, among other things, that the defendant is in arrears in child support in the amount of $4,246.   Thereafter, the court heard argument from the defendant's counsel and the self-represented plaintiff on the issue of whether the lump-sum disability insurance payments for retroactive benefits received by the plaintiff mother on behalf of the parties' minor son should be credited towards the defendant father's agreed child support arrearage.   The defendant submitted a post-argument memorandum to the court on December 27, 2013.   The plaintiff submitted her reply on December 31, 2013.

The facts of the case are not in dispute.   The defendant was ordered by the court on August 13, 2009, to pay child support to the plaintiff in the amount of $70 per week.   By agreement of the parties and order of the court dated October 29, 2009, the defendant's child support payments were adjusted so that the defendant was thereafter obligated to pay only half of his weekly child support obligation on an on-going basis while the remaining half accrued and was to be paid in full on the first to occur of two events, one of which was the defendant's receipt of retroactive Social Security disability benefits payment.

Sometime in 2013, the defendant's long-awaited disability benefits were approved and the Social Security Administration (SSA) issued lump-sum retroactive benefit checks as follows:  (a) approximately $30,000 to the defendant;  (b) approximately $9,500 to the parties' daughter who had reached the age of majority in March 2013;  and (c) approximately $12,000 to the plaintiff as representative payee for the parties' minor son.   The defendant now argues that the $4,246 child support arrearage should be deemed satisfied by the lump-sum payment the plaintiff received on behalf of the parties' minor son.   The plaintiff replies that in accordance with the parties' prior agreement and the court's order, the defendant remains liable to her for payment of the outstanding arrearage.   For the reasons set forth below, the court agrees with the plaintiff.

The parties' October 29, 2009 agreement, as approved and ordered by the court, expressly provides that the defendant will pay the accrued child support arrearage to the plaintiff, in full, upon the earlier to occur of two events:  (1) the defendant obtaining full-time employment;  or (2) the defendant receiving his check for retroactive Social Security disability benefits.   The first event never occurred.   The second event occurred last year.   As to the latter event, the agreement and order further provide that the plaintiff would receive payment of the outstanding accrued child support within seven days from the date when the defendant received his benefits check.   The defendant received his benefits check in 2013;  however, he has not paid the plaintiff the accrued child support arrearage she is due.

The defendant relies upon several Connecticut cases in support of the proposition that lump-sum Social Security disability insurance payments for retroactive benefits paid to a custodial parent for the benefit of a minor child may be credited toward a child support arrearage.   See Tarbox v. Tarbox, 84 Conn.App. 403, 853 A.2d 614 (2004), Washburn v. Washburn, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford–New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 315735, 1998 WL 96310 (February 18, 1998, Bishop, J.) (21 Conn. L. Rptr. 321), and Harabosky v. Harabosky, Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. 310792, 1998 WL 67405 (June 23, 1998, Axelrod, J.) (22 Conn. L. Rptr. 388).   These cases, however, are inapposite to the issue before this court.   Here, the parties previously agreed and the court ordered that the child support arrearage would be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant once he received his disability benefits payment from the SSA. In the cases cited by the defendant, no similar agreement was entered by the parties or ordered by the court.

The defendant has not provided this court with any compelling reason to disregard the parties' prior agreement and the court's previous order and apply instead the general principles of law enunciated in Tarbox, Washburn and Harabosky.   Accordingly, the court does not find that the defendant's child support arrearage has been satisfied through the payment made by the SSA to the plaintiff as representative payee for the parties' minor son.   Rather, the court finds that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for payment of the outstanding child support arrearage.

For these reasons, the defendant's motion to determine arrearage is GRANTED.   The court hereby orders the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $4,246 upon the terms and conditions agreed by the parties and ordered by the court on November 14, 2013 (No. 125.00 and 125.01).

Morgan, J.

Morgan, Lisa K., J.