TN 25 (02-18)

A. PR 18-051 Compliance with Arkansas State Law Order of Garnishment for Spousal Support

Date: February 12, 2018

1. Syllabus

In response to an inquiry, we confirm that the State of Arkansas has authority to garnish Social Security benefits for spousal support.

Proper service of an order for garnishment by the State of Arkansas must be made by:

1. a sheriff of the county or his or her deputy,

2. a person appointed for the purpose of serving summons by the court,

3. a person authorized to serve process under the law outside the state where service is made, or

4. in the event of service by mail or commercial delivery company, by the plaintiff or an attorney of record for the plaintiff.

In addition, it has been determined that, for the State of Arkansas, the Social Security Administration (SSA) should not pay garnishment directly to a plaintiff’s attorney.

2. Opinion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

In determining whether the Social Security Administration (SSA or agency) can comply with an Arkansas Writ of Garnishment (Writ) for spousal support (alimony) as to the number holder (NH) B~’s Title II Social Security benefits, you asked these three questions:

(1) Whether Social Security Title II benefits are subject to garnishment under Arkansas state laws;¹

(2) Whether the Writ for spousal support that a law firm representing the NH’s former spouse (Plaintiff) hand delivered on an SSA field office was properly served under Arkansas law and whether Arkansas law regarding service has changed since 2011; and

(3) Whether the agency could pay garnished funds directly to Plaintiff’s attorney.

ANSWERS

We answer your specific questions as follows:

We believe that the agency may reasonably find that the Writ is a valid legal process regular on its face under Arkansas law because Arkansas law permits garnishment of Social Security Title II benefits for spousal support and because an Arkansas court of competent jurisdiction issued the Writ.

We believe that the agency could reasonably conclude that the Writ, hand delivered by an employee of the law firm representing Plaintiff, was not properly served under Arkansas law, which has not changed since 2011.

We advise that SSA should not pay garnished funds directly to Plaintiff’s attorney, but may send, or release, the funds payable to the Plaintiff in her name in care of her attorney.

In sum, because there was no proper service, in accordance with the agency’s instructions in POMS GN 02410.205(B)(1), we advise that the agency not comply with the Writ until properly served.

To assist with this matter, we have prepared the enclosed letter that we will send to the Court and to Plaintiff’s attorney to advise that the agency will not be filing an Answer to the Writ or providing responses to the interrogatories; to advise of the improper service of the Writ; and to advise that if properly served with the Writ, the agency will honor the Writ.

BACKGROUND

On May XX, 2017, the Circuit Court of W~ County, Arkansas, Domestic Relations Division (Court) issued a judgment against the NH for the payment of a spousal support arrearage in the amount of $10,425.91. As of September XX, 2017, the NH was more than 12 weeks in arrears, and $9,468.59 of the spousal support judgment was unsatisfied. The NH’s former spouse (Plaintiff) alleged that the agency may possess money belonging to the NH. On September XX, 2017, the Court issued the Writ directing the agency to prepare a written answer and respond to attached interrogatories within 30 days. A~, a representative from Plaintiff’s law firm, hand delivered the Writ to the S~, Arkansas field office (FO) on September XX, 2017. On December XX, 2017, the FO sent a letter to the Court stating that the NH had filed a claim for Social Security benefits, but had not yet been awarded payments and that SSA would notify the Court once it had decided the claim. The agency adjudicated and granted the NH’s claim for Title II retirement benefits on December XX, 2017, and paid the NH his benefits for October and November 2017. It is our understanding that the agency is presently withholding some of the NH’s Title II benefits for garnishment due to receipt of the Writ.

ANALYSIS

A. Federal Law and Agency Policy on Garnishments: The Social Security Act Permits Garnishment of Title II Benefits for Spousal Support when the Agency is Properly Served with a Valid Legal Process that is Regular on Its Face under the Laws of the Issuing Jurisdiction

Generally, the Social Security Act (Act) precludes garnishment of Social Security benefits to satisfy legal obligations. Under section 207(a) of the Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 407, “none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.” See 42 U.S.C. § 407(a); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1820(a). However, under section 459(a) of the Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), the United States consented to withholding certain benefits, including Social Security benefits payable under Title II of the Act, to enforce an individual’s legal obligation to provide child support or alimony (spousal support).² See 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), (h)(1)(A)(ii)(II); 5 C.F.R. § 581.103(c)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1820(b); Program Operations Manual System (POMS) General (GN) 02410.200(A). Thus, Social Security Title II benefits are subject to legal process brought by an individual in a State court to enforce an individual’s legal obligation to provide spousal support or child support. See 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), (h)(1)(A)(ii)(II); 5 C.F.R. § 581.103(c)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1820(b); POMS GN 02410.200(A). However, the legal process must meet certain requirements, as addressed next.

Although section 459(a) of the Act waives sovereign immunity in the context of withholding and garnishment to enforce a legal obligation to pay child support or spousal support, this waiver is limited and only applies to a “legal process regular on its face.” See 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), (f); see also United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 836 (1984) (holding that under 42 U.S.C. § 659(f) granting the United States immunity from suit with respect to support payments, the government “cannot be held liable for honoring a writ of garnishment which is ‘regular on its face’ and has been issued by a court with subject-matter jurisdiction to issue such orders.”); Dockery v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2016 WL 3087453, at *2-3 (D. Md. June 1, 2016) (“the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 659 only permits enforcement of garnishment orders, and does not provide a federal cause of action or federal jurisdiction to entertain an action against the Government regarding its garnishment of federal benefits or other monies payable to an individual.”). “Legal process” is defined as “any writ, order, summons, or other similar process in the nature of garnishment” that is directed to a governmental entity and is issued by either (1) a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) an authorized official pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or pursuant to state or local law, or (3) a state agency that is authorized to issue income withholding notices. 42 U.S.C. § 659(i)(5); 5 C.F.R. § 581.102(f); POMS GN 02410.200(B).

In considering whether a legal process is “regular on its face” under the laws of the issuing jurisdiction, courts have looked at such things as whether the order was dated, bore the court’s signature and court’s seal, recited the names of the parties to the court action, identified the basis for the action taken, and identified amounts to be withheld. See Trimble v. U.S. Soc. Sec., 369 Fed. App’x 27, 32 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding SSA immune from liability for garnishing Trimble’s benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 659(f)(1) and (i)(5), and stating that “[h]ere, the state court order directing the SSA garnish Trimble’s benefits was entered by a state court that was competent to adjudicate matters involving child support. In addition, the order was dated, bore the judge’s electronic signature, and lacked any indication it was not valid legal process. Thus, the record demonstrates that the state court order at issue here was regular on its face.”); Millard v. U.S., 16 Cl. Ct. 485, 489 (Cl. Ct. 1989) (“the phrase ‘regular on its face,’ means nothing more than what it says: legal process whose validity, facially judged, appears to evidence a legitimate exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the issuing authority,” and concluding the order was regular on its face where it recited the names of the parties, basis for the action being taken, and amounts to be withheld; and bore the seal of the issuing court, stamped signature of judge, and attestation by the clerk of the court), aff’d, 916 F.2d 1 (Fed. Cit. 1990); Dockery, 2016 WL 3087453, at *2-3 (“the Government cannot be held liable for honoring a garnishment order that appears, on its face, to be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and in accordance with state laws and regulations, even if it is later proven that the issuing court lacked jurisdiction or its decision was improper.”).

In light of the legal provisions noted above, SSA’s POMS instructs the agency to review the garnishment order to make sure it is an order concerning child support or alimony, and to make sure it is valid under the laws of the issuing State. POMS GN 02410.210(A)(1). Further, the agency must comply with a garnishment order only if it has been properly served in a manner provided by the State issuing the order. POMS GN 02410.205(A).

Accordingly, in light of the above legal and policy requirements, the agency must honor a writ of garnishment (or other legal process in the nature of garnishment) of Title II Social Security benefits if the writ is for the purpose of recovering spousal support or child support; the writ is a valid legal process that is regular on its face under the law of the State issuing the writ; and the agency is properly served with the writ consistent with the law of the State issuing the writ. See 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), (f), (i)(5); 5 C.F.R. §§ 581.103(c)(1), 581.305(a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1820(b); POMS GN 02410.200, 02410.205(A), GN 02410.210(A)(1). We will address these requirements while also answering your three specific questions to determine the broader issue of whether SSA can comply with the Writ.

Here, there is no question that the Arkansas court issued the Writ to garnish the NH’s Title II Social Security benefits to enforce spousal support obligations. See POMS GN 02410.210(A)(1) (instructing the agency to review the garnishment order to make sure it is an order concerning child support, alimony, or court ordered victims restitution). We next consider whether the Writ is a valid legal process regular on its face under Arkansas law and whether the Writ has been properly served under Arkansas law. See POMS GN 02410.200(B), GN 02410.205(A), GN 02410.210(A)(1).

B. State Law: The Writ is a Valid Legal Process under Arkansas Law Regular on Its Face because Arkansas Law Permits Withholding of Title II Social Security Benefits for Spousal Support and because an Arkansas Court of Competent Jurisdiction Issued the Writ

As explained above, for SSA to comply with the Writ, it must be a valid legal process regular on its face under Arkansas law. See 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), (f), (i)(5); 5 C.F.R. § 581.305(a)(1); POMS GN 02410.200(B), GN 02410.210(1)(b) (“Make sure that the order meets the laws of the issuing State. The garnishment order must be valid according to the law of the State issuing the order.”); see also United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. at 836; Trimble v. U.S. Soc. Sec., 369 Fed. App’x at 32; Millard v. U.S., 16 Cl. Ct. at 489. Before we address whether there was valid legal process in this case, however, we first address your question whether Arkansas law allows a court to order withholding of Title II Social Security benefits to satisfy a spousal support obligation based on language in the Writ suggesting otherwise.

Arkansas law authorizes circuit courts³ “to enforce . . . orders for alimony and maintenance by sequestration of the property of either party . . . or by such other lawful ways and means, including equitable garnishments or contempt proceedings.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-313; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-110-401(a)(1) (“In all cases where any plaintiff . . . may have obtained a judgment before any of the courts, and the plaintiff shall have reason to believe that any other person is indebted to the defendant or has in his or her hands or possession goods and chattels, moneys, credits, and effects belonging to the defendant, the plaintiff may sue out a writ of garnishment . . .”). Under Arkansas law regarding spousal and child support enforcement, “income” includes “any periodic form of payment due to an individual, regardless of the source, including wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, workers’ compensation, disability, payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program, and interest.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-201; see also Ark. Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Hearst, 357 S.W.3d 450, 456 (Ark. 2009) (holding that Title II benefits fall within the definition of “income” for purposes of determining child support). Accordingly, we believe that Arkansas law permits garnishment of the NH’s Title II benefit payments to satisfy a legal obligation for spousal support arrearages.

Seemingly in contrast to this law and with the Writ directed to SSA as the garnishee, language in the Writ notes that federal law exempts certain money from garnishment, and cites Social Security as an example. See Writ, at p. 3 (Notice to Defendant). This language derives from Arkansas Code section 16-110-402, which sets forth the procedure in issuing writs of garnishment, including the required notices to be given to the defendant. However, review of this section reveals that it is merely the State’s general notice to defendants regarding possible exemptions to garnishment, and that it broadly construes federal law, which generally prohibits garnishment under the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 407(a); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1820(a); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-110-402. However, the notice does not delve into federal law exceptions, such as for garnishment of Title II Social Security benefits for spousal support obligations. See 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), (h)(1)(A)(ii)(II); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1820(b); POMS GN 02410.200(A). Therefore, we do not interpret this notice in the Writ as a blanket prohibition against garnishment of Social Security Title II benefits in Arkansas, but rather a general notice to defendants required under the State law of potential exemptions to garnishment under federal law. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-110-402. Accordingly, we conclude that Arkansas permits garnishment of Social Security Title II benefits for spousal support obligations even though language in the Writ suggests otherwise.

In determining whether the Writ is a valid legal process regular on its face under Arkansas law, we also considered whether a court of competent jurisdiction issued the Writ. See 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), (i)(5)(A)(i); POMS GN 02410.200(B). In this case, the Deputy Clerk for the Circuit Court of W~ County, Arkansas, Domestic Relations Division, issued the Writ to enforce a judgment for spousal support entered by the Court against the NH on May 19, 2017, in which the Court found that the NH was in contempt of the Court for failure to pay spousal support as ordered in the Divorce Decree and that the NH was in arrears as to the spousal support obligations. Thus, this is a court of competent jurisdiction for purposes of issuing a writ of garnishment for a legal obligation for spousal support. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-312(a)(1) (“When a [divorce] decree is entered, the court shall make . . . an order concerning alimony, if applicable . . .”); Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-313 (“[c]ourts of equity may enforce the performance of written agreements between husband and wife made and entered into in contemplation of either separation or divorce and decrees or orders for alimony and maintenance by sequestration of the property of either party. . . or by other lawful ways and means, including equitable garnishments or contempt proceedings . . .”); Jenkins v. Jenkins, 2017 WL 5762313, at *3-4 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (noting that Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-313 grants courts of equity the authority to enforce written agreements between husbands and wives made in contemplation of divorce, and finding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction under this statute to make a contempt determination); Trucks v. Trucks, 459 S.W.3d 312, 314-15 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (circuit court is vested with the authority to issue spousal support orders).

Finally, we note that the Writ otherwise appears regular on its face under Arkansas law regarding garnishments as it is signed by the Deputy Clerk for the Circuit Court of W~ County; is marked with the seal of the Circuit Court for W~ County, Arkansas; explains that the Court issued an alimony judgment against the NH and that the NH is more than 12 weeks in arrears as to this judgment; identifies the balance of the alimony judgment; identifies in the caption the parties (including the NH) and court case for the alimony judgment; and contains requisite State law notices. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-110-401 – 16-110-417 (statutory provisions on garnishment proceedings, including requisite notices to be given to the garnishee and to the defendant); see also Trimble, 369 Fed. App’x at 32 (“Here, the state court order directing the SSA garnish Trimble’s benefits was entered by a state court that was competent to adjudicate matters involving child support. In addition, the order was dated, bore the judge’s electronic signature, and lacked any indication it was not valid legal process. Thus, the record demonstrates that the state court order at issue here was regular on its face.”); Millard v. U.S., 16 Cl. Ct. at 489 (concluding the garnishment order was regular on its face where it recited the names of the parties, basis for the action being taken, and amounts to be withheld; and bore the seal of the issuing court, stamped signature of judge, and attestation by the clerk of the court).

Thus, we believe that the agency may reasonably conclude that the Writ is a valid legal process that is regular on its face because Arkansas law permits garnishment of Title II Social Security benefits for spousal support and because an Arkansas court of competent jurisdiction issued the Writ and it is otherwise valid on its face. See POMS GN 02410.200(B), GN 02410.210(A)(1). We next consider your question of whether the agency was properly served with the Writ. See POMS GN 02410.205.

C. State Law: The Writ Was Not Properly Served Under Arkansas Law

Service of the garnishment writ must be made on the agency pursuant to the law of the State issuing the writ. POMS GN 02410.205; see also Lang v. Social Security Administration, 612 F.3d 960, 966 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that under 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), the U.S. Government is to receive the same treatment as a private person as to garnishment orders and that the state rules of civil procedure, not the federal rules of civil procedure, applied, and thus, Lang did not have to comply with the federal rules of service of process when serving the garnishment on SSA). As an Arkansas court issued the Writ, we consider Arkansas law regarding proper service of process for a writ of garnishment.

Arkansas laws regarding service of process have not changed since 2011. Under Arkansas law, “a writ of garnishment must meet the requirements applicable to summonses in civil cases.” Terminal Trick Brokers v. Memphis Truck & Trailer, Inc., 652 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Ark. 1983); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-110-402(b)(1)(A) (“A writ of garnishment together with the “Notice to Defendant” shall be directed, served, and returned in the same manner as a writ of summons.”). A writ of garnishment in Arkansas may be served by personal hand delivery, by a commercial delivery company, or by mail (“any form of mail addressed to the person to be served with a return receipt requested and delivery restricted to the addressee or the agent of the addressee” or by simple first class mail postage prepaid). See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-110-402(b)(1)(A); Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(c), (d). As to whom has the authority to serve a writ of garnishment, service may be made by:

(1) a sheriff of the county where the service is to be made, or his or her deputy;

(2) any person appointed pursuant to Administrative Order No. 20 for the purpose of serving summons by either the court in which the action is filed or a court in the county in which service is to be made;

(3) any person authorized to serve process under the law of the place outside this state where service is made; or

(4) in the event of service by mail or commercial delivery company, by the plaintiff or an attorney of record for the plaintiff. Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(c).

We interpret this rule to mean that a plaintiff’s attorney may only serve process him or herself via mail or commercial delivery. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(c). Service by personal, hand delivery can only be made by a county sheriff or a person appointed that the Court appointed as a process server. See id.

Here, a representative from the law firm representing Plaintiff hand delivered the Writ to the S~, Arkansas FO on September XX, 2017. The Court informed the undersigned that Plaintiff’s law firm, Heritage Law Firm, is not a registered process-serving firm. Further, there is no evidence that the court had appointed the firm’s representative, A~, as a process server pursuant to Administrative Order No. 20. Therefore, A~ is merely a representative for Plaintiff’s attorney, and not a process server. Accordingly, although the FO is the proper agency component to receive service under agency policy, A~ lacked authority to serve the Writ by hand delivery under Arkansas law, and therefore, the agency was not properly served with the Writ under Arkansas law. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(c); POMS GN 002410.205(A) (“Proper service of a garnishment order on SSA is in a manner provided by the applicable State law on the manager (or designated representative) of any Social Security Field Office (FO) or on any Program Center (PC).”).⁴

Consequently, because Plaintiff’s attorney used an improper method of service, there has been no legal service of process pursuant to applicable Arkansas law.⁵ See POMS GN 02410.205. SSA policy states that if a garnishment order is delivered by a method not in accordance with the law of the State in which it is issued, SSA is to return it to the Court explaining the improper service. POMS GN 02410.205(B)(1).

D. Garnished Funds Are Payable to the Plaintiff in Her Name, though May Be Delivered or Released in Care of Her Attorney

Finally, you ask if the agency can pay the garnished funds directly to Plaintiff’s attorney. The Writ states that the garnishee (the agency) should not pay any money to the Clerk, but rather should “hold the money until a Court directs [the money] to be released.” See Writ, at p. 2. The Writ further states under “Notice to the Garnishee” that when the Court “directs [the garnishee] to release the money,” the garnishee should “pay [the money] to the Plaintiff’s attorney or agent.” See Writ, at p. 3. Here, we are unaware of any order to the agency to release any garnished funds.

Though the Writ uses varying terms, we believe there is an important distinction between releasing, or delivering, the garnished funds to Plaintiff’s attorney and paying the garnished funds to Plaintiff’s attorney. In considering the distinction between paying and releasing, or delivering, the garnished funds, we note that in addition to issuing the Writ to the agency, the Court also issued a writ of garnishment to the NH’s employer. We were provided with the Court’s order for release of funds as to the NH’s employer. In the August XX, 2017 order for release of funds, the Court states that the NH’s employer (garnishee) is to “release . . . garnished funds to Plaintiff’s legal representative, Heritage Law Office, PLLC.” We interpret that the Court’s use of the term “release funds” in this case means to deliver them. We anticipate that similar language would be used in an order directing the agency to release garnished funds as well. We note that the Writ is based on a May XX, 2017 order of spousal support, which directs NH (the Defendant) to pay alimony arrearage to Plaintiff. Therefore, under the terms of this May 2017 order, because the garnished funds belong to Plaintiff, not her attorney, we believe that such funds should be made payable to Plaintiff in her name.

Accordingly, if the agency is properly served by the Writ, should the Court order the agency to release garnished funds to Plaintiff’s attorney, we believe the agency may comply by making the funds payable to Plaintiff in her name but released to, or delivered in care of her attorney.⁶

CONCLUSION

We answer your specific questions as follows:

We believe that the agency may reasonably find that the Writ is a valid legal process regular on its face under Arkansas law because Arkansas law permits garnishment of Social Security Title II benefits for spousal support and because an Arkansas court of competent jurisdiction issued the Writ.

We believe that the agency could reasonably conclude that the Writ, hand delivered by an employee of the law firm representing Plaintiff, was not properly served under Arkansas law, which has not changed since 2011.

We advise that SSA should not pay garnished funds directly to Plaintiff’s attorney, but may release, or send the funds payable to the Plaintiff in her name in care of her attorney.

However, in the absence of proper service at this time, in accordance with the agency’s instructions in POMS GN 02410.205(B)(1), we advise that the agency not comply with the Writ until the agency is properly served.

To assist with this matter, we have prepared the enclosed letter that we will send to the Court and to Plaintiff’s attorney to advise that the agency will not be filing an Answer to the Writ or providing responses to the interrogatories; to advise of the improper service of the Writ; and to advise that if properly served with the Writ, the agency will honor the Writ.

Footnotes:

[1]

To clarify, we have reordered your questions for consistency with our analysis.

[2]

We use the term alimony and spousal support interchangeably in this opinion. See 42 U.S.C. § 659(i)(3) (defining alimony); see also POMS GN 02410.200(E) (defining alimony as periodic payment of funds for the support and maintenance of a spouse or former spouse subject to and in accordance with state law).

[3]

Although the statute refers to “courts of equity,” Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 2 notes that courts of law and equity courts were merged into the circuit courts, which are the state’s trial courts of original jurisdiction. Ark. R. Civ. P. 2.

[4]

Further, Arkansas requires the person effecting service to make proof of service to the court clerk (Clerk). Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(g). If service is made by a person other than a sheriff or his deputy, the person shall make affidavit thereof, and if service has been by mail or commercial delivery company, shall attach to the affidavit a return receipt, envelope, affidavit or other writing required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(8). Id. Because a review of the docket report for this case shows no proof of service has been filed with the Court in this case, on that ground we also note that there has been no proof of service under Arkansas law.

[5]

It is our understanding that SSA has already sent a letter to the Court implicitly acknowledging receipt of the Writ and informing the Court that the NH had applied for benefits. Under Arkansas law, a party’s appearance waives any defects in process. Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (1). Here, the SSA letter was not filed as an appearance, nor did it purport to be an answer or response to interrogatories. Nonetheless, even if the letter was interpreted to be an appearance under Arkansas law, the agency is protected by sovereign immunity. See, e.g., U.S. v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990) (noting that the United States is immune from suit unless it consents). A waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed. Franconia Associates v. U.S. 536 U.S. 129, 141 (2002). SSA did not explicitly waive sovereign immunity in the letter. Thus, the SSA letter does not constitute an appearance under Arkansas law nor a waiver of sovereign immunity. Accordingly, SSA has not waived Plaintiff’s defective service.

[6]

We note that OGC Region V has similarly advised that the agency may comply with a garnishment order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction that specifies payment be sent to the plaintiff in her name in care of her attorney. See Memorandum from Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago, to Ass’t Reg. Comm. – MOS, Chicago, Representative Payment, Child Support Order (Johnson), at 2 (April 22, 2008).