Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Darwin Sealy and Sally Lee Ammerman were divorced and Sealy was ordered to pay Ammerman child support and one-half of the childrens’ uninsured medical costs. Orders were thereafter entered on various dates decreasing and increasing the amount of support. Sealy subsequently received a Notice of Award informing him that he was entitled to monthly disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). The SSA determined that Sealy became disabled on Nov. 8, 2000; however, Sealy did not qualify for benefits until he was disabled for five consecutive calendar months. As a result, Sealy was not entitled to monthly disability benefits until May of 2001. As a result of Sealy’s disability, one of his children, Gretchen, received a lump sum payment of the monthly child’s benefit she was entitled to receive from May 2001 through October 2001. After October 2001, Gretchen was not entitled to receive the monthly child’s benefit because she had turned 18. Because she was an adult in 2003, Gretchen’s lump-sum entitlement was paid directly to her. Sealy’s other child, Colleen, received a lump sum payment in July 2003 of the monthly child’s benefit she was entitled to receive from May of 2001 through June of 2003. In addition, Colleen would continue to receive a monthly child’s benefit until she turned 18. Colleen’s payments were made to her mother as Colleen’s representative payee. In April of 2004, the Office of the Attorney General filed a Suit for Modification of Child Support and Motion to Confirm Child Support Arrearage. On Aug. 10, 2004, the trial court entered an order confirming an arrearage judgment against Sealy for unpaid child support in the amount of $14,982 and a medical support arrearage judgment in the amount of $6,184. Sealy also was ordered to pay current child support of $250 per month. Sealy appealed and argued that the trial court erred in failing to credit the social security disability payments received by his children against his child support obligations. HOLDING:Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. Sealy contends that under Texas case law, he is entitled to a credit or offset for social security disability benefits paid to his children as a result of his disability. The Attorney General asserts that ��157.262(a) and (f) of the Texas Family Code preclude a trial court from ordering such an offset. The court states that �154.132 of the Texas Family Code contains a specific provision relating to the application of child support guidelines to children of certain disabled obligors. The court finds that the record does not reflect that the trial court calculated the amount of child support Sealy would be required to pay in the future as it was required to do in accordance with �154.132. Accordingly, the court reverses the portion of the trial court’s order establishing the amount of child support Sealy is required to pay after the date of that order. Moving on to the next issue, the court notes that it has never addressed whether an obligor is entitled to credit a lump sum social security disability payment received by his children against unconfirmed arrearages owed to the obligee. The court states that, by adopting �154.132, the Legislature has recognized the equity in granting a credit for social security disability benefits when establishing or modifying child support. However, the court considers that the Legislature may have decided to only grant the credit prospectively because of the delays in the administration’s processing of disability claims. Given the competing policies and equities, the court finds that whether an obligor is entitled to an offset against past unconfirmed child support arrearages is an issue for the Legislature to decide. Until further action is taken by the Legislature, the court olds that ��157.262(a), (f) of the code preclude the court from finding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing the credit the disability payment received by Colleen against the unconfirmed child support arrearages. Consequently, the court affirms the remainder of the trial court’s judgment and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion. OPINION:Simmons, J.; Alma L. Lopez, C.J., Catherine Stone and Rebecca Simmons, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.