Laub v. Zaslavsky
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
McEWEN, Judge:
We are here called upon to determine whether arrearages, which had been created solely as a result of the retroactive application of a support order, constitute “past-due support” as that term is used in Section 464 of the Social Security Act, subjecting the obligor to the provisions of the federal income tax refund intercept statutes. The distinguished Judge Jerome A. Zaleski concluded that such arrearages do not constitute “past-due support” and cannot form the basis upon which to intercept a federal income tax refund owed to the obligor. We agree.
This appeal has been taken…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sorenson v. Secretary of the TreasurySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Smith v. Onondaga County Support Collection UnitDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1985
- Presley v. ReganDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1985
- Rucker v. Secretary of Treasury of United StatesDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1986
3Cited by4 opinions
- Davis v. North Carolina Department of Human ResourcesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
- Kenck v. CSED FlemingMontana Supreme Court · 2013
- Laub v. ZaslavskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- O'Neill v. Gioffre, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1988