Opinion ID: 2306077
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Payments

Text: Although we would normally not consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief, see District of Columbia v. Patterson, 667 A.2d 1338, 1346 n. 18 (D.C.1995) ([A]n argument first raised in a reply brief comes too late for appellate consideration.), this court granted appellant's motion for leave to supplement his brief and must now consider whether the trial court erred in accepting appellee's calculation of arrearages where appellant actually made payments to appellee under the Agreement. Appellant argues that any payments made should have been applied to the oldest payment due. For example, ... if a payment of $1000 were due on December 1, 2000, and [appellant] made a first payment of $1000 on April 24, 2002, then that payment should have been credited to the December 1, 2000, obligation, accruing (in addition to the $100 late fee), a ... penalty for sixteen months for which the payment had not been made, resulting in a ... penalty of $1600. Appellee's calculations, on the other hand, are based on the following: monies received in addition to any $1,000 monthly payment for any one month would first go to pay down wire transfer costs...; then any one-time monthly late fee...; then to any consecutive $100 a month charges for each month of nonpayment that had buildup ...; and then, finally, to last-in-time unpaid core monthly child support obligations. It is a well-established principle that every creditor has the right to apply the unappropriated monies of his debtor in extinguishment of the debts due him. District of Columbia v. Aetna Ins. Co., 462 A.2d 428, 430 (D.C.1983) (quoting Gratiot v. United States, 40 U.S. 336, 370, 15 Pet. 336, 10 L.Ed. 759 (1841)). If a debtor makes a payment without specifying to which debt the creditor should apply the payment, a creditor may apply the payment in a manner chosen by the creditor. United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, 22 U.S. 720, 737-38, 6 L.Ed. 199 (1824). See also Herget Nat'l Bank of Pekin v. USLife Title Ins. Co. of New York, 809 F.2d 413, 418 (7th Cir.1987) (As a general rule, a creditor who holds various accounts of the debtor may, in the absence of direction from the debtor, apply funds to the best advantage of the creditor.); United States v. Pollack, 370 F.2d 79, 80 (2d Cir.1966) ([I]t is the right of the creditor to apply sums received from the debtor or for his account in such fashion as to give the creditor the utmost advantage of such security as the creditor may possess.). There is nothing in the record showing that appellant expressed that his payments be applied in a particular manner. Rather, the evidence shows that appellee informed appellant of the manner in which she planned to apply payments made by appellant in her letter to him of January 30, 2006. [12] In the absence of a contract provision requiring that such payments be allotted as appellant contends, and in the absence of any evidence that appellant requested that his payments be applied in a particular manner, we conclude that the trial court did not err in applying appellee's method for determining the allocation of payments actually made by appellant. [13]