FAMILY LAW CLINIC ARGUES TO COLLECT INTEREST ON
PAST DUE CHILD SUPPORT
The Center for Social Justice Family Law Clinic (Prof. Claudette
St. Romain) argued before a three judge panel of New Jersey’s
Appellate Division on February 7 in a case of state-wide
significance. The FLC was granted permission to appear as amicus
curiae in Pryce v. Scharff , which raises the question of whether
New Jersey’s child support enforcement agency must collect interest
on past-due child support. The FLC argued that state law, which is
enacted pursuant to federal requirements, mandates that the agency
seek full enforcement of child support obligations. Since past-due
child support becomes a judgment by operation of law, post-judgment
interest attaches and becomes an intrinsic part of the money due to
custodial parents. Therefore, the FLC argued, interest must be
collected by the agency in order to satisfy their obligation to
capture all child support actually due.
The state argued that the agency is empowered to establish a rate of
post-judgment interest different than that available for other money
judgments, and, having failed to do so, the interest rate ought to
be deemed to be 0%. In the alternative, they argued that the agency
appropriately exercised its discretion in declining to collect
interest so as to maximize its reported success rate in the
collection of past-due support, thereby possibly qualifying for
incentive payments from the federal government. Finally, they
interpreted the federal statute to permit, but not require, the
collection of interest, and thus argued that federal reimbursement
funds might not be available for state activities dedicated to the
collection of interest.
Since there are over a quarter of a million families in New Jersey
to whom child support is past-due, and since uncollected child
support arrears in our state exceed $2 billion, the Court’s ruling
in this case will have a tremendous impact across the state. Erin
Gilmore (’05) and Patricia McManus (’06) each wrote briefs accepted
by the Appellate Division. Scott Krompinger (’06) worked with both
Professor St. Romain and counsel for the appellant in preparing the
oral arguments. |
