Woman blindsided by 29 year old debt

[Steve]

Question for you guys. A woman was receiving survivors payments for a dependent daughter. That daughter, at age 14, got married and was no longer eligible for payments, but the mother didn't report it and became overpaid, to the tune of about $6500. Because the daughter had become emancipated from her mother due to her marriage, she was also liable for the overpayments as a adult, although it's pretty clear she had no idea about them at all.

Here's the question. The overpayment is correct. It's lawful, and if SSA doesn't pursue the collection of debt, it is poor stewardship. She owes the government money. Is Social Security doing the right thing to collect? Where does responsible stewardship give way to just being mean?

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20130506/NEWS01/305010055/Woman-blindsided-by-29-year-old-Social-Security-debt

[h=1]Woman blindsided by 29-year-old Social Security debt[/h][h=2]Social Security takes women's tax refund for payments made to mother in 1984[/h]
It had been a difficult time recently, and the $5,414 she was expecting to be deposited Feb. 27 is equal to more than a quarter of her annual salary, Clampit said.
But no deposit was made, and when she checked the IRS website to find out what happened, she was referred to the Social Security Administration.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I find it hard to justify going after this woman after that length of time, given that the stewards of the social security system have stolen from it and mismanaged it to such an extent that its future viability is in serious doubt.

 

[granfire]

Interesting...I am guessing the woman inherited the mother's dept....otherwise the idea of repaying funds you did not receive is rather - scary.

So, that could mean that the mother held the dept, who knows, paid 5 bucks to appease the powers for the time in question, then died, now whammo, daughter gets hit with the fun part of her inheritance. That is - to me - the only reason there is a nearly 3 decade gap....

And maybe the woman needs to rethink her tax strategy....I know a lot of people around here do it, too, but it's a rather stupid savings program to let Uncle Sam play with your money for a year, interest free....

 

[sfs982000]

After 29 years, I wouldn't think the SSA would have a leg to stand on if they try to go after the woman for back payment.

 

[Tgace]

The ole catch-22. Will you spend more money fighting it than you would paying it.

Whole lawsuit mills make their money by suing people for that "sweet spot" amount of "cheaper to just pay it."

It sucks.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[harlan]

Where the h*ll in this country can you get married at 14? Pursue the woman for taking her daughter's benefits? She should be in jail for being a lousy mother.

 

[granfire]

Where the h*ll in this country can you get married at 14? Pursue the woman for taking her daughter's benefits? She should be in jail for being a lousy mother.

30 years ago? With parental consent, indeed! (Loretta Lynn got married that young...a shade earlier though I believe)

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/

 

[Steve]

I find it hard to justify going after this woman after that length of time, given that the stewards of the social security system have stolen from it and mismanaged it to such an extent that its future viability is in serious doubt.

Wow. Stolen and mismanaged... clearly some emotion on the subject from you. You believe that solvency concerns of SSA are because it's been mismanaged? Are you talking about Congress or the SSA?

Interesting...I am guessing the woman inherited the mother's dept....otherwise the idea of repaying funds you did not receive is rather - scary.

So, that could mean that the mother held the dept, who knows, paid 5 bucks to appease the powers for the time in question, then died, now whammo, daughter gets hit with the fun part of her inheritance. That is - to me - the only reason there is a nearly 3 decade gap....

And maybe the woman needs to rethink her tax strategy....I know a lot of people around here do it, too, but it's a rather stupid savings program to let Uncle Sam play with your money for a year, interest free....

Survivors benefits are actually paid to the recipient of the funds. So, the mom likely got a payment, and then each of her kids received payments, as well. Because the kids were dependents, all of the money was paid directly to the mom. So, essentially, my understanding is that the debt is actually the daughter's debt, but it was paid to the mom. Because the daughter was considered an emancipated youth when she got married, she was being overpaid. The time difference has to do with when the laws came into place. SSA has only been legally able to recover debt from the IRS for a short time. Up until recently, they could only go back up to 10 years to recover debt in this way. By that time, this debt was over 10 years old. But now that the time frame has been lifted, they are going back further.

After 29 years, I wouldn't think the SSA would have a leg to stand on if they try to go after the woman for back payment.

It's a tough one, which is why I thought I'd bring it up. I'm surprised that so many here are defaulting to the side of the debtor.

The ole catch-22. Will you spend more money fighting it than you would paying it.

Whole lawsuit mills make their money by suing people for that "sweet spot" amount of "cheaper to just pay it."

It sucks.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

She's already requested a waiver of the overpayment, so it could be reduced or completely waived. Also, bear in mind that she has received due process. She received notification.

Where the h*ll in this country can you get married at 14? Pursue the woman for taking her daughter's benefits? She should be in jail for being a lousy mother.

LOL. Interesting perspective, harlan! I thought the same thing at first, too. But, then I figure that marriage has survived 29 years. Who am I to judge?

 

[pgsmith]

I feel that there needs to be a statute of limitations set on it. 29 years is a long time to go back to retrieve a debt. If my great grandfather happened to avoid paying his taxes until he died, can they take my tax refund now to pay for his debt?

There's just something inherently wrong about the entire situation in my opinion.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Wow. Stolen and mismanaged... clearly some emotion on the subject from you. You believe that solvency concerns of SSA are because it's been mismanaged? Are you talking about Congress or the SSA?

No real emotion on the subject; from what I understand, congress has pilfered from it and SSA has mismanaged it. In fairness, I'm not as informed on the details as I should be aside from that a fund that everyone is required to pay into shouldn't be running dry.

 

[Steve]

I feel that there needs to be a statute of limitations set on it. 29 years is a long time to go back to retrieve a debt. If my great grandfather happened to avoid paying his taxes until he died, can they take my tax refund now to pay for his debt?

There's just something inherently wrong about the entire situation in my opinion.

That's fair, but let's keep it apples to apples. This is technically the daughter's debt, not her mom's debt. It's crusty and old, granted. But as far as we can tell from the article, it's a legitimate overpayment.

 

[Steve]

No real emotion on the subject; from what I understand, congress has pilfered from it and SSA has mismanaged it. In fairness, I'm not as informed on the details as I should be aside from that a fund that everyone is required to pay into shouldn't be running dry.

Fair enough. If that's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I got the impression there was emotion involved, because it is a very strong, definitive position on a topic you admit not being as informed as you should on.

 

[Steve]

So, let me get your guys' take on this. The reason this article was interesting to me is that it has to do with government collecting legitimate debt, and this struck me as a very interesting case study. For those of you who think that this is too far in the past, at what point should the government write off the debt? The record is still active. And just in case it was missed, the woman does have the rights that every person has. She can request an appeal, if she believes that the overpayment is a mistake. Or if it's not a mistake, but she believes she is not at fault in creating the overpayment AND that paying it back would represent a financial hardship, she can request a waiver. An appeal or a waiver are both still on the table for her. Understanding this, do you still think that the overpayment should be written off automatically?

How about interest? The government didn't charge any. Do you think they should? Or should the debt be calculated based upon today's dollar value? Were it indexed, the overpayment of 29 years ago would be substantially larger.

Is this draconian? Is it responsible stewardship? Is it just too mean or unfair?

And just to be clear, I am hoping that this doesn't turn into a discussion about SSA in particular. This could be any government agency, from the VA to the IRS. Any agency that pays benefits of some kind runs the risk of creating an overpayment. As you go back in time, and systems and workload controls were less automated, the risk just goes up. These questions apply equally to them all.

 

[pgsmith]

No real emotion on the subject; from what I understand, congress has pilfered from it and SSA has mismanaged it. In fairness, I'm not as informed on the details as I should be aside from that a fund that everyone is required to pay into shouldn't be running dry.

SSA is a really easy target for politicos these days since it's been announced that outlay will exceed income by 2021. Lots of folks have jumped on that bandwagon to flog their consituents into making knee-jerk decisions of benefit to the politicians. Here's a quick rundown about what the deal is with the SSA. Most interesting to me is the fact that income inequality has a large part to do with the projected problems with Social Security. You never hear any of the politicinas complaining about that!

5 Huge Myths About Social Security

 

[pgsmith]

So, let me get your guys' take on this. The reason this article was interesting to me is that it has to do with government collecting legitimate debt, and this struck me as a very interesting case study. For those of you who think that this is too far in the past, at what point should the government write off the debt? The record is still active. And just in case it was missed, the woman does have the rights that every person has. She can request an appeal, if she believes that the overpayment is a mistake. Or if it's not a mistake, but she believes she is not at fault in creating the overpayment AND that paying it back would represent a financial hardship, she can request a waiver. An appeal or a waiver are both still on the table for her. Understanding this, do you still think that the overpayment should be written off automatically?

How about interest? The government didn't charge any. Do you think they should? Or should the debt be calculated based upon today's dollar value? Were it indexed, the overpayment of 29 years ago would be substantially larger.

Is this draconian? Is it responsible stewardship? Is it just too mean or unfair?

And just to be clear, I am hoping that this doesn't turn into a discussion about SSA in particular. This could be any government agency, from the VA to the IRS. Any agency that pays benefits of some kind runs the risk of creating an overpayment. As you go back in time, and systems and workload controls were less automated, the risk just goes up. These questions apply equally to them all.

I don't agree with your position that this was not her mother's debt. The money was paid to her mother, she never saw a dime of it. Technically it was paid in her name, but it was not paid to her. Here's a scenario for you using your logic in this case. Say my mother had her social security checks deposited in our jointly owned account. if the government continued to deposit these checks in the account, and I spent all the money, you're saying that this would be my mother's debt, not mine. Since my brother had her power of attorney and was responsible for her debts, the government should garnish his income tax returns to get the money back.

Add to this the fact that they garnished her tax return. They did not send her a bill and negotiate payment like any other entity would, they simply stole her money because the government already had it in their hand.

I think it is terribly over-bearing, and an indicator of excessive power in our government.

 

[Tgace]

Was there an intent to defraud on either (or both) side?

 

[arnisador]

She was a minor? It was paid to her mother? What exactly is the legal theory here?!?

 

[Steve]

I don't agree with your position that this was not her mother's debt.

Okay. Philosophically, you have an opinion. But legally, the money was paid to the daughter. You can disagree with the law as passed by Congress, but based upon what I saw in the article, it's the daughter's debt. There was nothing in the article to suggest that the overpayment was inappropriate. The article focused on whether it was fair to recoup the debt after so much time had passed.

The money was paid to her mother, she never saw a dime of it. Technically it was paid in her name, but it was not paid to her.

The mom kept the money, because the mom was the payee on the record, since she was the custodial parent of the child, but the money is still paid to the child.

Here's a scenario for you using your logic in this case. Say my mother had her social security checks deposited in our jointly owned account. if the government continued to deposit these checks in the account, and I spent all the money, you're saying that this would be my mother's debt, not mine. Since my brother had her power of attorney and was responsible for her debts, the government should garnish his income tax returns to get the money back.

I'm not sure I understand your example completely, but it sounds like what you're talking about is fraud, and is very much against the law. This is actually a fairly common example of fraud, where a child sort of forgets to inform social security that a parent has passed, and keeps spending the money.

Add to this the fact that they garnished her tax return. They did not send her a bill and negotiate payment like any other entity would, they simply stole her money because the government already had it in their hand.

They sent her a notice that included information about the amount of the debt, as well as her rights to appeal or request a waiver. According to the article, she had 60 days to act before any attempt to collect occurred. And since she's holding a bunch of letters in her hand in the picture, it's reasonable to presume that she also received the letters informing her of the overpayment and just didn't do anything with them.

I think it is terribly over-bearing, and an indicator of excessive power in our government.

This is what I'm interested in. Where's the line, in your opinion? When is it reasonable for the government to pursue a debt, and what do you think would have been the right way to handle this?

 

[Steve]

Was there an intent to defraud on either (or both) side?

I don't get the impression that anyone intended to defraud the government. The article mentions that a waiver is possible where a person is not at fault and payment would be a hardship.

She was a minor? It was paid to her mother? What exactly is the legal theory here?!?

I don't know the specific laws in that State, but my impression is that she was an "emancipated youth" and so no longer a minor in the eyes of the courts once she got married. That's what caused the overpayment in the first place, because she was no longer a dependent and so no longer eligible for benefits on her deceased father's record.

 

[Drasken]

Considering the fact that the government was just as at fault I would say that instead of blindsiding her now, it would be more ethical to allow payments to be made. At least give the woman an opportunity now that it has come to light.
I say the government is just as at fault because if she were emancipated and married... Well that is on file. And part of her taxes and many other things that government agencies pay people to keep track of. So this should have been caught long ago. Like before the debt was several thousand dollars.

Mismanagement of benefits like this isn't all too uncommon. And we wonder why the future of our government programs like Social Security is in question.
The fact is that the debt is legitimate. But it was a mistake on the government's side as they understand the laws that this woman likely didn't. So give the woman at least part of her tax refund and allow her to plan payments. Worst case scenario you just take the rest out of taxes later. Blindsiding people will end up with people like this lady actually NEEDING government assistance programs to get by.

As for this lady. Well, realize it happened. She will have to pay. Now or later, and it's time to work that into a budget. Been there myself. It sucks and it's a part of life. Sorry :/