Wiliams Divorce & Family Law Logo

CAN WE HELP?Request your free 30 minute consultOR CALL US AT 651-332-7650

  • Home
  • Our Staff
    • Attorney Gerald O. Williams
    • Paralegal Jocelyn Daul
  • Practice Areas
    • Alimony
    • Child Custody
    • Child Support
    • Collaborative Divorce
    • Divorce
    • International Custody
    • Interstate Custody
    • LGBTQIA+ Divorce & Custody
    • Mediation
  • Billing
    • Billing FAQ
    • Flat Fee Divorce
  • Blog
  • Clients
    • Making Payments
  • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Directions to Williams Divorce and Family Law
    • Resources
    • Privacy Policy

In the Matter of Dakota County and Floding v. Gillespie

Posted by Gerald Williams 
· April 22, 2016 
· No Comments

(Filed July 22, 2015) (Supreme Court)

Appellant Mother, who was receiving child support from Respondent Father, began receiving Social Security dependent benefits upon Respondent’s retirement. The child support magistrate granted Respondent’s motion for modification, offsetting his obligation by the dependent benefits received. The district court clarified the magistrate order to expressly provide for benefits already received by Appellant to be applied to Respondent’s prospective child support obligation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the application of past benefits to Respondent’s prospective obligation did not constitute a retroactive modification of child support, which is not authorized by the support statute, other than while a modification motion is pending.

The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the subtraction of the dependent benefits is an integral part of the child support calculation, which means a dollar-for-dollar offset of the benefits is not necessarily accurate. Moreover, the statutes do not provide a provision for accommodating the commencement of Social Security benefits, so the offset must necessarily occur in conjunction with a modification under the applicable statutory provision.

There was a dissenting opinion emphasizing that the receipt of benefits (not a modification motion) is the essential triggering event for the subtraction of benefits that, under the statute, must occur. Therefore, the dissent would have affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling.

No Comments
Categories : Court of Appeals
Previous Post →
← Next Post

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Posts

  • Child Support and Alimony Arrears
  • Spousal Maintenance Payments Are Not Deductible From Taxable Income
  • Interesting Perspective on Divorce, Mediation and Collaborative Law
  • Independence of Provisions for Parenting Time and Child Support
  • Name Change in Divorce

Categories

  • Alimony / Spousal Maintenance (8)
  • Child Custody (42)
  • Child Support (21)
  • Co-parenting (1)
  • Court of Appeals (2)
  • Divorce (45)
  • Financial Issues (2)
  • General Family Law (53)
  • Guardian ad litem (6)
  • Interstate issues (2)
  • LGBTQIA Divorce (5)
  • Mediation (5)
  • Mental Health (3)
  • Parenting Plans (1)
  • Parenting Time (17)
  • Parenting time expeditor (3)
  • Uncategorized (37)
  • Uncontested Divorce (6)
Copyright © 2025 Williams Divorce & Family Law All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy

The content of this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an attorney-client relationship. To establish an attorney-client relationship with Williams Divorce & Family Law requires a retainer agreement signed by you and attorney Gerald O. Williams.

Minnesota divorce attorney, Gerald O. Williams, represents clients in divorce and family law primarily in the communities of Woodbury, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Cottage Grove, Maplewood, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, and Stillwater, as well as the greater seven county metro area including Washington, Ramsey, Hennepin, Dakota, Anoka, Scott, and Carver.