A California appeals court has ruled an ex-husband can be ordered to make good allegedly delinquent child support, even if an employer was already withholding child support payments from his salary, because nothing in state code shields an ex-spouse from back payments.
The Jan. 13 ruling was penned by Associate Justice John Segal, with concurrence from Justice Dennis Perluss and Associate Justice Gail Feuer, of California Second District Appellate Court, which sits in Los Angeles. The ruling favored Betsy Brubaker in her dispute with her former husband, Andy Strum.
Brubaker and Strum divorced in 2019, with Strum's employer ordered to withhold child and spousal support. Strum lost his job in April 2021, but received severance pay. He started a new job 12 days after the severance pay ended. The new employer, Kinetiq/IQ Media, was ordered to withhold support, which was done.
Brubaker claimed her support payments were short. In June 2021, she asked Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael R. Powell to order Strum to account for what he allegedly owed. Strum replied that issues with support payments were the responsibility of the employer.
Judge Powell agreed, ruling the matter was between Brubaker and the employer, because the employer was under a court order to withhold payments.
Powell also granted Strum's request for sanction against Brubaker's attorney, Mark H. Karney, of Fernandez & Karney, of Santa Monica. Karney was sanctioned, because it was "absolutely clear" the employer, not Strum, was responsible for payments, according to Powell.
"What has happened here is we had a request for [an] order that never should have been filed at all," Powell said.
Karney was ordered to pay Strum's legal bill of $9,329.
On appeal, Justice Segal said the lower court judge was wrong about the California Family Code, which governs support payments.
The Family Code makes employers liable for arrearages they intentionally fail to withhold and forward, but does not "relieve obligors [such as Strum] of liability for arrearages, even where an employer withheld support payments but failed to forward the payments," Segal pointed out.
Segal added the Family Code "does not insulate Strum from an action to enforce the payment of arrearages."
Strum maintained that if Brubaker could collect back support from him, she could then collect a "double recovery" of arrearages from his employer.
Segal shut down this line of argument, stating, "Nothing in the Family Code suggests the obligee can recover the arrearages owed from both the employer and the obligor."
Segal also lifted the sanction against Karney, because Karney was on solid ground when he sought the order for an accounting from Strum.
Strum has been represented by Gregory A. Girvan, of Feinberg, Mindel, Brandt & Klein, of Los Angeles.