Court Opinion

ID: 9719554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:55:49.878652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:08.101471
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, P.J.
(dissenting). 1 respectfully dissent. Defendant argues that one of the parties is going to receive a windfall in the amount of $7,537.75. Defendant also argues that some jurisdictions have ruled that government benefits for dependents should be credited against support orders. See Cash v Cash, 234 Ark 603; 353 SW2d 348 (1962), Horton v Horton, 219 Ga 177; 132 SE2d 200 (1963), Andler v Andler, 217 Kan 538; 538 P2d 649 (1975), and Cohen v Murphy, 368 Mass 144; 330 NE2d 473 (1975). On the specific facts of this case, I am convinced that the minor child, and not the father, is entitled to the lump sum disability payment and that the father’s outstanding support obligation should not be satisfied out of this fund.
The Social Security Administration has taken the position that "in instances where a parent is responsible for making court-ordered support pay*659ments, such legal obligation cannot be discharged by denominating children’s disability insurance benefits as 'child support’ from the parent.” Hennagin v Yolo Co, 481 F Supp 923, 924 (ED Cal, 1979) quoting from Fuller v Fuller, 49 Ohio App 2d 223; 360 NE2d 357 (1976). This position is consistent with the theory that the children would be entitled to these benefits whether or not the parents were divorced, a theory relied on by some of the jurisdictions that have refused to grant a credit against child support obligations. See, e.g., Craver v Craver, 649 SW2d 440 (Mo, 1983); Nibs v Nibs, 625 P2d 1256 (Okla, 1981).
I believe that the position taken by the Social Security Administration is sound and particularly appropriate here where the arrearage started to accrue long before the father was disabled. The equities definitely favor the plaintiff and the minor child, a factor either not present or not addressed in the majority of the cases that have reached the opposite result. See In re Estate of Patterson, 167 Ariz 168; 805 P2d 401 (1991), and the cases cited there. I would affirm the decision of the trial court.