"Administrative" Checking Account Seizures
jeff...@howamazing.com
http://www.jsonline.com/news/State/may01/dedbeat06050501a.asp
Arrested last week because he is believed to owe $131,910 in back
child support, David Bruni is still a drop in the bucket when it comes
to deadbeat parents in Wisconsin.
In Washington County, where Bruni was arrested, his alleged debt to
the mothers of three of his children is one of the highest in recent
memory. But statewide, Bruni's back payments are just one man's
contribution to a $2 billion barrel of red ink.
Getting to the last resort - issuing an arrest warrant and seeking
criminal charges as authorities are doing with Bruni - is something
they hope will become more and more of a rarity.
With new tools at their disposal, child support agencies think they
now have their best opportunity to force payments from parents in
arrears and reduce the sea of bad debt washing over the state's child
support system.
Among those tools:
Child support lien docket
Without a court order, the Bureau of Child Support can attach a lien
to houses and property. At the time of sale, the child support debt
comes out of the proceeds.
Account seizures
Agencies can seize bank and investment accounts now without court
order. The back child support amount is deducted from the accounts.
License suspensions
Fishing, hunting, driving and even professional licenses can be
suspended until the child support obligations are paid off.
"We are giving people every opportunity to come forward and settle
up," said Rachel Biittner, with the state Department of Workforce
Development. "But if you don't, we have the tools to get the money
owed those families."
Those new tools are the result of the federal Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Although numbers vary from
county to county, parents who are on schedule with their child support
payments remain more the exception than the rule, according to numbers
tracked by agents. In Racine County, fully 92% of cases on file with
Bureau of Child Support agents have some sort of arrearage.
Child support cases come under the authority of the bureau if the
custodial parent applies for state aid or applies for help enforcing
the child support order, typically issued at the time of a divorce or
paternity finding. Amicable arrangements between former spouses are
not tracked.
"A point that often goes missed in the welfare reform debate is that
to get families independent, they need to get the child support due
them," Biittner said, adding that child support is a fundamental
element of financial security for single-parent families.
The child support lien docket started in October 2000. Anyone owing
$30,000 was placed on the docket, but that threshold has been slowly
lowered; as of Saturday, anyone who owes $15,000 will be placed on the
docket, Biittner said.
Big results The tactic works, agents say.
John Hayes, Milwaukee County child support enforcement director, said
his office recently collected $82,000 through the lien docket.
"Holy smokes, it's great," he said. "The money is just rolling in. It
is an invaluable tool for us."
Washington County netted $53,000 from one parent within the last few
months, according to Assistant County Attorney Christine Ohlis. The
man was living out of state and had been sent a letter about his debt.
"He had been placed on the docket and he was selling property in
Wisconsin," she said. "He contacted us to cooperate in getting the
child support debt paid off."
That payment was part of $397,437 collected so far under the docket
program statewide.
Ohlis said the administrative tools help make the most of her staff's
time.
"I'd love to have a bigger budget and more staff and investigators,
but that's not reality," she said. "The lien docket, license
suspension - those types of programs are wonderful, and the result is
that we're getting tougher."
While lien dockets have produced the quickest results for agents, two
account seizures are pending, according to Biittner, with the owners
of accounts recently receiving letters. One parent owes $47,000 and
authorities will seize that amount from an account worth $500,000.
The license revocations will soon be fully implemented, she said.
Local agencies will have full discretion on whether to suspend
professional licenses, going after everyone from truckers to doctors.
The agencies probably will use the tactic with some caution.
"It doesn't make a lot of sense to take away a person's livelihood
when you want them to pay child support," Biittner said.
When all else fails, there is criminal prosecution to fall back on.
In Bruni's case, he was charged with six counts of failure to support.
The criminal complaint alleges that during a 20-month period between
May 1998 and December 1999, Bruni failed to pay support in at least 17
of those months.
Divorced in 1980, Bruni was ordered to pay support for two children
from his first wife.
Divorced again in 1986, he was ordered to pay support for a son.
In 1996, he agreed to begin paying $350 per month in support for the
first two children and an additional $50 toward the back child support
due from 1980 forward, according to court records. He was also ordered
to pay his second wife $400 per month for current child support and
arrearages.
Ohlis is prevented from addressing Bruni's case specifically. But she
said her department does not seek criminal charges lightly.
Bruni appeared in court Monday on the six counts. If convicted he
could face more than 10 years in prison. He was released on a $1,000
signature bond and is scheduled to return to court June 13.
"Generally speaking, this is the last resort," she said. "If it gets
to charges, we've tried all the other options."
frazil
a lien or suspend a license without getting a court to specifically order
the lien or license suspension. I assume that it means that a CS order has
been established and someone thinks that arrearages have accumulated.
That said, why, if a CS order is already establish, is it such a problem to
go to court and prove that arrearages exist, to get a court to order a lien
or license suspension.
IOW, assuming an established CS order, why is it necessary to allow an
agency to place a lien or suspend a license for CS arrearages, without
establishing in court that arrearages do, in fact, exist.
It seems sinister to me.
<jeff...@howamazing.com> wrote in message
news:9vlhvu$644$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu...
chris
> http://www.jsonline.com/news/State/may01/dedbeat06050501a.asp
> Arrested last week because he is believed to owe $131,910 in back
> child support, David Bruni is still a drop in the bucket when it comes
> to deadbeat parents in Wisconsin.
> In Washington County, where Bruni was arrested, his alleged debt to
> the mothers of three of his children is one of the highest in recent
> memory. But statewide, Bruni's back payments are just one man's
> contribution to a $2 billion barrel of red ink.
> Getting to the last resort - issuing an arrest warrant and seeking
> criminal charges as authorities are doing with Bruni - is something
> they hope will become more and more of a rarity.
> With new tools at their disposal, child support agencies think they
> now have their best opportunity to force payments from parents in
> arrears and reduce the sea of bad debt washing over the state's child
> support system.
> Among those tools:
> Child support lien docket
> Without a court order, the Bureau of Child Support can attach a lien
> to houses and property. At the time of sale, the child support debt
> comes out of the proceeds.
ONLY the government owns real estate; the rest of us are merely their
tenants. Don't believe me? Stop paying your property tax (rent) and see if
you don't get evicted!
> Account seizures
> Agencies can seize bank and investment accounts now without court
> order. The back child support amount is deducted from the accounts.
> License suspensions
> Fishing, hunting, driving and even professional licenses can be
> suspended until the child support obligations are paid off.
I knew a woman whose sister sued her ex for past due "child support". He was
a truck driver and lost his job due to a work slowdown. Being a driver for
many years, that was the only way he knew how to make a living. Right after
he landed a truck driving job with a new company, she took his driver's
license away from him as punishment for not paying "child support".
He'd be better off in prison because instead of paying $$$ to support
someone else, others will be paying $$$ to support him.
chris
"Moon Shyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9vn5ma$g6eip$1...@ID-46339.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:G8BT7.184455$SF4.6...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
The government stole from homeowners when they took their property away.
This theft takes place at the moment of purchase. So now the government is
charging us to live in stolen property. I'll let you figure it out.
>
> >
> > > Account seizures
> > > Agencies can seize bank and investment accounts now without court
> > > order. The back child support amount is deducted from the accounts.
> > > License suspensions
> > > Fishing, hunting, driving and even professional licenses can be
> > > suspended until the child support obligations are paid off.
> >
> > I knew a woman whose sister sued her ex for past due "child support". He
> was
> > a truck driver and lost his job due to a work slowdown. Being a driver
for
> > many years, that was the only way he knew how to make a living. Right
> after
> > he landed a truck driving job with a new company, she took his driver's
> > license away from him as punishment for not paying "child support".
>
> *She* didn't take away his driver's license. *She* didn't have that
power.
Who is she?
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > He'd be better off in prison because instead of paying $$$ to support
> > someone else, others will be paying $$$ to support him.
>
> Yeah. You will. With those *stolen* tax dollars.
I certainly will, and so will you......"IF" you pay taxes.
>
> >
> > >He was released on a $1,000
> > > signature bond and is scheduled to return to court June 13.
> > > "Generally speaking, this is the last resort," she said. "If it gets
> > > to charges, we've tried all the other options."
>
> Chris? No comment about how none of the other options worked?
Not sure what you're talking about. I didn't read the post in great detail.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
chris
your
> taxes?
I have given you my position on this matter MANY times in the past, and if
you choose to not remember, I am unwilling to repeat myself.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Account seizures
> > > > > Agencies can seize bank and investment accounts now without court
> > > > > order. The back child support amount is deducted from the
accounts.
> > > > > License suspensions
> > > > > Fishing, hunting, driving and even professional licenses can be
> > > > > suspended until the child support obligations are paid off.
> > > >
> > > > I knew a woman whose sister sued her ex for past due "child
support".
> He
> > > was
> > > > a truck driver and lost his job due to a work slowdown. Being a
driver
> > for
> > > > many years, that was the only way he knew how to make a living.
Right
> > > after
> > > > he landed a truck driving job with a new company, she took his
> driver's
> > > > license away from him as punishment for not paying "child support".
> > >
> > > *She* didn't take away his driver's license. *She* didn't have that
> > power.
> >
> > Who is she?
>
> The same *she* you referred to in the statement right above mine.
Apparently, my question flew right over your head. Let me rephrase it. Who
is this person (she) that I am talking about? And how do you know that
"*She* didn't take away his driver's license. *She* didn't have that
power"?
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > He'd be better off in prison because instead of paying $$$ to
support
> > > > someone else, others will be paying $$$ to support him.
> > >
> > > Yeah. You will. With those *stolen* tax dollars.
> >
> > I certainly will, and so will you......"IF" you pay taxes.
>
> Of course I do - quite a bit in taxes, actually.
> Why would you think that I don't?
Why "WOULD" I think that you don't??? I'm not sure what you mean by your
question.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >He was released on a $1,000
> > > > > signature bond and is scheduled to return to court June 13.
> > > > > "Generally speaking, this is the last resort," she said. "If it
> gets
> > > > > to charges, we've tried all the other options."
> > >
> > > Chris? No comment about how none of the other options worked?
> >
> > Not sure what you're talking about. I didn't read the post in great
> detail.
>
> That much was obvious, by your comments.
Since it was so obvious, then why didn't you clarify yourself?
>
>
chris
> sufficed. You work so hard to not answer this question!
Wasn't hard at all; I just choose to NOT waste my time repeating myself.
Apparently, you choose to spend your time counting words as you have done in
the past.
Did you inadvertently miss my questions (directly above) or do you choose to
not answer them?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > He'd be better off in prison because instead of paying $$$ to
> > support
> > > > > > someone else, others will be paying $$$ to support him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah. You will. With those *stolen* tax dollars.
> > > >
> > > > I certainly will, and so will you......"IF" you pay taxes.
> > >
> > > Of course I do - quite a bit in taxes, actually.
> > > Why would you think that I don't?
> >
> > Why "WOULD" I think that you don't??? I'm not sure what you mean by your
> > question.
No response?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >He was released on a $1,000
> > > > > > > signature bond and is scheduled to return to court June 13.
> > > > > > > "Generally speaking, this is the last resort," she said. "If
> it
> > > gets
> > > > > > > to charges, we've tried all the other options."
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris? No comment about how none of the other options worked?
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what you're talking about. I didn't read the post in great
> > > detail.
> > >
> > > That much was obvious, by your comments.
> >
> > Since it was so obvious, then why didn't you clarify yourself?
No response?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
The Dave©
> I take it the phrase "without court order", means
> that the agency can place a lien or suspend a
> license without getting a court to specifically order
> the lien or license suspension. I assume that it
> means that a CS order has been established
> and someone thinks that arrearages have
> accumulated.
>
> That said, why, if a CS order is already establish,
> is it such a problem to go to court and prove that
> arrearages exist, to get a court to order a lien or
> license suspension.
>
> IOW, assuming an established CS order, why is it
> necessary to allow an agency to place a lien or
> suspend a license for CS arrearages, without
> establishing in court that arrearages do, in fact,
> exist.
>
> It seems sinister to me.
It's called the path of least resistence. When you have the courts and
firepower (law enforcement) on your side, what's "right" according to due
process doesn't matter anymore.
We keep electing the same people over and over and they keep beding us over
a table. What sheep we are. (no pun intended)
frazil
The Dave© <thed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u22qfnn...@corp.supernews.com...
> "frazil" wrote
> > I take it the phrase "without court order", means
> > that the agency can place a lien or suspend a
> > license without getting a court to specifically order
> > the lien or license suspension. I assume that it
> > means that a CS order has been established
> > and someone thinks that arrearages have
> > accumulated.
> >
> > That said, why, if a CS order is already establish,
> > is it such a problem to go to court and prove that
> > arrearages exist, to get a court to order a lien or
> > license suspension.
> >
> > IOW, assuming an established CS order, why is it
> > necessary to allow an agency to place a lien or
> > suspend a license for CS arrearages, without
> > establishing in court that arrearages do, in fact,
> > exist.
> >
> > It seems sinister to me.
>
> It's called the path of least resistence. When you have the courts and
> firepower (law enforcement) on your side, what's "right" according to due
> process doesn't matter anymore.
So, when someone shop lifts, we should throw everyone in the store in jail
until we figure out who actually took the item.?
>
> We keep electing the same people over and over and they keep beding us
over
> a table. What sheep we are. (no pun intended)
And why is that?
frazil
Moon Shyne <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9vn5ma$g6eip$1...@ID-46339.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:G8BT7.184455$SF4.6...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> >
One could argue that they are. They take money from you in an amount you
have no say over, and spend it in a manner over which you have no say.
Put that way it certainly sounds like theift. If an individual took your
money, in an amount they determined, and spent any way they chose, they
would be charged subject to arrest for theift.
>
> >
> > > Account seizures
> > > Agencies can seize bank and investment accounts now without court
> > > order. The back child support amount is deducted from the accounts.
> > > License suspensions
> > > Fishing, hunting, driving and even professional licenses can be
> > > suspended until the child support obligations are paid off.
> >
> > I knew a woman whose sister sued her ex for past due "child support". He
> was
> > a truck driver and lost his job due to a work slowdown. Being a driver
for
> > many years, that was the only way he knew how to make a living. Right
> after
> > he landed a truck driving job with a new company, she took his driver's
> > license away from him as punishment for not paying "child support".
>
> *She* didn't take away his driver's license. *She* didn't have that
power.
But she had the power to enlist the system to take it.
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > He'd be better off in prison because instead of paying $$$ to support
> > someone else, others will be paying $$$ to support him.
>
> Yeah. You will. With those *stolen* tax dollars.
>
> >
> > >He was released on a $1,000
> > > signature bond and is scheduled to return to court June 13.
> > > "Generally speaking, this is the last resort," she said. "If it gets
> > > to charges, we've tried all the other options."
>
> Chris? No comment about how none of the other options worked?
The option is not the problem. The problem is that one can't defend
themselves against it before the option is excersised. I can think of no
other area of law in which the penalty is metted out before the all facts
are gathered.
What is so difficult with getting a court, with the attendent opportunity to
tell the court the other side of the story, to order the punishment. Why is
it necessary to suspend a citizen's constitutional rights to enforce the
law. We don't do in the case of murder, robbery, etc. Why is it allowed
here.
Bob Whiteside
frazil wrote:
Snipped for brevity
> The option is not the problem. The problem is that one can't defend
> themselves against it before the option is excersised. I can think of no
> other area of law in which the penalty is metted out before the all facts
> are gathered.
Trying to make family law logical will drive you nuts. The system simply passes
this off by saying you do have options to exercise. And if you have problems
with the court order you need to file motions to get the court to consider your
side of the story and hopefully act. If you don't play the game the way they
have it set up you lose. The law is set up to say if you are in contempt of the
court's order, you are wrong, and it doesn't matter why you are in contempt. I
have even tried filing motions for the court to consider concurrent with the
contempt proceedings and they routinely listen to your story and then refuse to
rule on your motion and rat hole them for eternity. The game is one of "I'm not
going to consider your motion," followed by a later ruling that "This issue has
already been before the court."
>
>
> What is so difficult with getting a court, with the attendent opportunity to
> tell the court the other side of the story, to order the punishment. Why is
> it necessary to suspend a citizen's constitutional rights to enforce the
> law. We don't do in the case of murder, robbery, etc. Why is it allowed
> here.
You always have the right to a court hearing. Suspending licenses,
garnishments, and other forms of CS enforcement are done in the state's
administrative processes. You can appeal the outcome from the administrative
process, usually within a 30 day period, to a court and have a judge rule on
your case. The laws are constructed in such a way that the outcome from the
administrative process stands during the appeals process. However, in the case
of garnishments, the money remains in limbo until a judge releases it. From my
personal experience, the judge's assume the state administrative process is
always right and they won't listen to how the process varied from the actual
law. IOW the courts cover the butts of the bureaucrats.
The Dave©
> So, when someone shop lifts, we should throw
> everyone in the store in jail until we figure out
> who actually took the item.?
Bonehead analogy. That wouldn't follow due process, either.
> > We keep electing the same people over and
> > over and they keep beding us over a table.
> > What sheep we are. (no pun intended)
>
> And why is that?
Because we, as a society in general, are always complaining about our
elected leaders, but keep re-electing them. We seem to think "All
politicians are crooks, except mine. He's okay."
chris
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3C226F38...@teleport.com...
Birds of a feather flock together.
>
>