Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But contact usually means that a subpoena is mailed to the father's address, and they get the address from the mother. In California my son's girlfriend applied for welfare WHILE he was living with her and supporting their son. Welfare had DCSS (child support) open a case against him, they mailed the subpoenas to the address she provided (her friend's address) the case was settled by default with a judgment against him for support for a child he was living with and supporting, he knew NOTHING about it. The court failed to file a judgment against his wages so he only found out when DMV was going to suspend his license for non payment of child support.
The only strange part in the story is that he claimed he didn't know his wages were garnished nearly 16 years ago.
Something is missing in that story.
You get a notice when wages are garnished. Presumably, his employer would know his address. The employer also gets a notice and they are required to pass that notice along, so you get the notice TWICE.
Why'd he never get that notice?
If I was his lawyer, I'd be focusing on how he was never notified and proving he wasn't notified.
You could argue that he'd not notice 31 dollars missing a few times out of his paycheck, of course.
Also, the state is the party coming after him to get this money.
I'd lay odds the mom has been collecting AFDC for 16 years and they want to recoup some of that loss.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
It looks like (according to one article) the woman and her lawyer said at one point, his wages had been garnished; obviously, this fellow did not know. I am not a lawyer, but my brother is one. A lawyer won't just say things unless they have prove. So if the lawyer said his wages had been garnished at one point, he/she must have evidences to prove that.
A lawyer doesn't need to prove that his wages were garnished. The attorney could very well have relied upon the mother's statement for that, but let's assume they were garnished... Why only three payments, why did they stop? I'm just appalled that the judge who decided this didn't require that attorney to produce records of the garnishment and an explanation for why it stopped after three payments.
You get a notice when wages are garnished. Presumably, his employer would know his address. The employer also gets a notice and they are required to pass that notice along, so you get the notice TWICE.
Why'd he never get that notice?
If I was his lawyer, I'd be focusing on how he was never notified and proving he wasn't notified.
You could argue that he'd not notice 31 dollars missing a few times out of his paycheck, of course.
Also, the state is the party coming after him to get this money.
I'd lay odds the mom has been collecting AFDC for 16 years and they want to recoup some of that loss.
I've addressed this already
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
well, I have already said, I agree with you he should have corrected the error a long time ago.
However, to be fair and honest, there is something missing in this story.
It looks like (according to one article) the woman and her lawyer said at one point, his wages had been garnished; obviously, this fellow did not know.
I am not a lawyer, but my brother is one. A lawyer won't just say things unless they have prove. So if the lawyer said his wages had been garnished at one point, he/she must have evidences to prove that.
The article is not clear on this part. I've read several articles of the same story online, not every article says the woman has a lawyer, one article says SHE claimed his wages had been garnished at one point, that is it.
All these said, nothing changes the fact that law needs updating.
If there was a garnishment why did it stop after three deductions from his paychecks for $31 each? Depending on his income, and whether or not he received overtime I can make a case for why he wouldn't have even researched three $31 deductions. Years ago my overtime would fluctuate from paycheck to paycheck and since the withholding rate was higher on overtime I would just look at my net and 'guesstimate' whether it was right, I didn't go through my check stub to confirm a $20 or $30 variation."
"Court records indicate that Cornejo’s paystubs at a previous car dealership job showed three garnishments of $31 from each check. Cornejo’s lawyer said that his client never received any letter from the state of Texas informing him about the garnishments. ‘There were three garnishments of $31 each when he worked at a dealership. He’s never gotten a letter from the state of Texas,” Coleman said. “At issue is he’s still not the father.” Nobody is disputing that. The mother is not disputing that."Paternity test proves man is NOT the father, ordered to pay child support regardless – Crime Online
He was never served the original court subpoena
“I’ve researched the records and found that there is an issue with the service where they served him back in 2002. There are some anomalies with how this case handled by the attorney general’s office. He was never served with those documents in 2002 when the actual paternity petition was filed against him.” Texas Man Ordered To Pay $65k Child Support For Child That Isn't His
I figure he quit the job and never got another one that included taxes taken out for the State of Texas, or the garnishment would have gone back into effect.
I'd also like to know why the car dealership's accounting office did not tell him his wages were being garnished. They were supposed to do that, too.
I hope he's not required to pay it if there were mistakes made in his notification and his paychecks were such that they'd vary... such as with a person selling cars... enough that he'd never notice 31 dollars.
Which, btw? 31 dollars? He was a TERRIBLE car salesman if he was only required to pay 31 dollars based on his income. Which is probably why he left that job so quickly.
Just a guess.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
A lawyer doesn't need to prove that his wages were garnished. The attorney could very well have relied upon the mother's statement for that, but let's assume they were garnished... Why only three payments, why did they stop? I'm just appalled that the judge who decided this didn't require that attorney to produce records of the garnishment and an explanation for why it stopped after three payments.
I think if this case goes to court, the "lawyer" needs to have evidences to prove that the wages were indeed garnished at one point. He/she cannot just tell the judge, "my client said the wage had been garnished." I could be wrong, but I assume "wage garnishment" is not hard to prove.
This said, I agree with the rest of your post.
If indeed the woman has a lawyer, the lawyer must have viewed this case as a win win case which it is most likely, unfortunately.
According to the rules listed on that pdf for Texas, there's no way he could not have known.
Unless Texas screwed something up.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
