(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Central Collection Unit shall pay the net proceeds of collections into the State Treasury.
(b) If the funds of a unit of the State government are not part of the State Treasury, the Central Collection Unit shall deliver to the Treasurer the net proceeds of collection on a debt or claim that was due to the unit of the State government for its account.
(c) All fees collected under § 3-304(a)(2) of this subtitle shall be credited to the Central Collection Fund established under § 3-306 of this subtitle.
(d) The Central Collection Unit shall deliver the net proceeds of collections from defendants or liable parents in arrears on restitution payments to the Division of Parole and Probation or the Department of Juvenile Services to be forwarded by the Division or Department to the victim or other appropriate person or agency in accordance with the judgment of restitution.
Recently my Husband was contacted by the DHR, child support admin. 'recoupment' divison. The letter received was notifiying him that he was sent monies in 1999 and 2000 as a tax intercept from his x-wife who was ordered to pay child support. There was no documention provided. Only the threat of sending his 'account' to collections if the money (1,556.00)was not paid. After many calls, made all the more difficult during the holidays, he finally was told that his x wife, Ms. S., amended her taxes therefor money forward by BOSE to my husband, the custodial parent, actually belonged to Ms. S.'s 2nd husband (who had custoday of thier children) My husband was also told, as a result, the state had to reimbure Mr S. the tax intercept monies. Keep this in mind. Ms S. was always in arrears of a 25.00 per week child support order. Twelve years later those children are now 29 and 26 year old adults, Ms S. still carries an arrears balance, and to top it off, the state of Maryland is saying my Husband has to pay back money that was owed to him. We feel if anyone owes the money, Ms S. owes it. And finally, the manner in which this has been handled adds insult to injury. To make threat of destroying the good credit we have worked 25 years to establish. How is this fair? [edited by admin to remove last names]
January 06, 2012
Steven Daily: ...
I'm sure this is slim consolation, but keep in mind that it was only through an error that your husband ever received the $1,556 to begin with. The state now has to pay that money to someone else, and if it does not collect from your husband, Maryland taxpayers are the losers. That hardly seems fair, either.