Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
|
Hawai'ian Child Support Recipients Win $3.9 Judgment from the State for Missed Payments |
 |
 |
|
|
A proposed $3.9 million judgment has been entered in an action filed against the Hawai'i Child Support Enforcement Agency on behalf of certain persons who allege that they received less in child-support payments than they expected between 1996 and the end of 2002. The action alleges that millions of dollars in undistributed child-support money resulted from checks being returned because of bad addresses and checks that were sent by the agency but never cashed. Claims must be filed by November 23, 2003, to be considered valid. The action was filed on behalf of Anne Kemp, a divorced mother who had a court order to have child-support payments deducted from her ex-husband's paycheck, as is the case in most divorce cases where child support is ordered. Kemp allegedly found that although the support payments were being deducted from her former husband's paycheck, the Child Support Enforcement Agency was not passing the money on to her within 48 hours as required by state and federal law. When Kemp tried to straighten out the matter, she alleged that she was met with what seemed at the time to be indifference, if not ineptitude, and an unresponsive agency. The judgment defines three separate subclasses of persons who might not have received their support payments: (1) All persons who, within two years prior to August 28, 1998, were entitled to receive child support payments through the Hawai'i Child Support Enforcement Agency; (2) all persons who, more than two years before August 28, 1998, were subject to a legal disability, were entitled to receive child support payments through the Hawai'i Child Support Enforcement Agency, and whose legal disability ceased one year prior to August 28, 1998, and (3) all persons who were, after May 17, 1999, entitled to receive child support payments through the Hawai'i Child Support Enforcement Agency and who did not or will not receive their payments within the time limits set by state law without legal justification. Persons who are eligible to file a claim should send a letter addressed to the Child Support Enforcement Agency Class Action Claims, P.O. Box 1950, Honolulu, HI 96805-1950. Or they may visit the agency's offices on the four major islands. People who write to or visit the agency to file claims should be able to provide the name of the person to whom the support payment was due, that person's social security number, a current mailing address and, if possible, the personal identification number assigned by the agency to the particular case and the case number. The Child Support Enforcement Agency has offices on all four major islands: the O'ahu office is at 601 Kamokila Boulevard, #251 in Kapolei; the Maui office is at 35 Lunalilo Street, Suite 201 in Wailuku; the office on the Big Island is at Waiakea Shopping Center, 88 Kanoelehua Avenue, Room 202 in Hilo; and the Kauai office is at 4180 Rice Street, Suite 104, in Lihue. The agency has set up a special telephone number to assist person who have questions about the judgment: (808) 692-7140. The judgment will not be effective until the court grants it final approval. The court has scheduled a hearing on the matter for October 7, 2003.
At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and
settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and
other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints.
Other Government Cases of Interest
The parties have reached a tentative settlement in an action filed against the state of Indiana on behalf of all Indiana residents with disabilities who are Medical Assistance recipients and who are either in a Medicaid funded facility or who are at imminent risk of such placement and who have either applied for Medicaid funded services in the community through the Aged and Disabled funded home- and community-based waivers administered by the state or who would be eligible for such services if they were available. Interested persons should contact the class attorneys for more information. Municipalities can generally collect taxes only on things the state allows. 12 separate class actions have been filed against Troy, Midland, Warren, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, St. Clair Shores, Canton, Royal Oak, Muskegon, Livonia, Plymouth, and Westland, Michigan, on behalf of citizens who allege that the cities have been collecting cable TV “franchise fees” in violation of state law. A potential federal class-action lawsuit alleges that there is a long-standing practice of excessive force at Sacramento's Main Jail. Robert Hunter, a 52-year-old veterinarian filed the lawsuit. He was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving early Sept. 17 and spent the night in the Main Jail. While there, his suit claims, three deputies threw him to the floor and fractured his elbow when he tried to signal them that the holding cell's toilet was clogged and overflowing.
The class has been certified in an action filed against various Illinois municipalities on behalf of residents with mobile phones who paid Telecommunications Infrastructure Maintenance Fees attributable to any municipality other than Chicago between January 1, 1998, and February 8, 2002. Residents who have their cellular service through U.S. Cellular or PrimeCo Personal Communications are not part of this action. Eligible participants do not need to take any action to remain a part of the class.
Generally, you cannot be held liable for debts incurred by a third party unless you voluntarily undertake to pay the debt. A $181,000 settlement has been reached between the parties in an action filed against the city of Myrtle Beach, SC, on behalf of more than 1,000 city residents who alleged that the city's water bill policy violated the state and federal constitutions by forcing current owners and renters to pay former owners' and tenants' water bills since February 5, 1994. Claims must be postmarked no later than October 31, 2003, to be considered valid. United States Army Officials recently issued a release stating that soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military. Army officials reported that the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies, including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.
|
IT'S FREE
Report
Report Newz and easily upload your own newzworthy photos from your
cell phone or computer to the web.
Share
Quickly share your photos with family, friends, co-workers, or the world with your own Newzpaper.
Read
Instantly find Newz and photos from other YouNewzers and read other YouNewzers Newzpapers.
|
|