NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only
Cosmo Lex
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Credit reporting of arrears arising from retroactive orders / Due Process or 5th Amendment Takings Clause aspect

  • 1.  Credit reporting of arrears arising from retroactive orders / Due Process or 5th Amendment Takings Clause aspect

    Posted 03-07-2019 12:17 AM
    Four and half years ago, Judge Jones issued a decision in Cameron v. Cameron, 440 N.J.Super. 158 (Ch.Div.2014), bringing to light an injustice many of us have seen where a support order is made retroactive, creating "arrears", which are then reported to credit bureaus, resulting in destroyed credit scores and, in some cases, denial of employment as a result of having an unsatisfactory credit report. People who have never missed a payment, never had a delinquency of any kind, are thus harmed. This occurs most often, but not always, in FD cases.

    In spite of Judge Jones' decision, probation/the DFD continue to fail to distinguish between "arrears" and "delinquency." I'm shocked, shocked I say, that the AOC/DFD haven't remedied this, either on their own (because, like, that's the type of thing the taxpayers pay millions of dollars per year for them to do) or after Judge Jones issued his decision. I'm currently working with a group of people researching how to approach the issue from a Procedural Due Process / Fifth Amendment "takings clause" angle.

    While it obviously takes a long, long time and a lot of work before a suit is filed if one expects it to be successful, and I'll of course write a polite letter asking the AOC to do the right thing without being sued, at this point we're looking for suitable plaintiffs. Someone like the plaintiff in Kenck v. Montana, 373 Mont. 168 (Mont. 2013), which failed (due to technical issues in how the issue was approached, not on the merits). There, the plaintiff was directly denied Federal employment due to the existence of claimed "child support arrears", even though he'd complied with every order. We need someone like Mr. Kenck. Or, preferably, 3-4 people like him as class representatives.

    If anyone has a client (or hears of one) who's damaged by this process, please pass their name on. Obviously, I wouldn't be looking to charge them anything if they'd be interested in helping to challenge an injustice in the system.

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223

    At 01:18 PM 4/1/2015, you wrote:
    Apr 1, 2015 2:18 PM
    David Perry Davis, Esq
     Cameron

    As was mentioned was coming, Judge Jones just published a decision on this issue (attached) and (at least for a couple of weeks) online at: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/trial_court_opinions/Cameron-v-Cameron.pdf .

    Good to see one of the biggest "Catch 22"'s in Family Court be addressed.

    Who knows, another one may be about to fall (driver's license suspensions) :-)

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223
    -------------------------------------------
      View Thread   Recommend   Forward  
     
    You are subscribed to "Family Law" as [email protected]. To change your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe.