Financial hardship may be deemed to exist in—but not limited to—those situations where the annuitant from whom collection is sought needs substantially all of his/her current income and liquid assets to meet current ordinary and necessary living expenses and liabilities.
(a) Considerations. Some pertinent considerations in determining whether recovery would cause financial hardship are as follows:
(1) The individual's financial ability to pay at the time collection is scheduled to be made.
(2) Income to other family member(s), if such member's ordinary and necessary living expenses are included in expenses reported by the annuitant.
(b) Exemptions. Assets exempt from execution under State law should not be considered in determining an individual's ability to repay the indebtedness, rather primary emphasis shall be placed upon the annuitant's liquid assets and current income in making such determinations.
Notes of Decisions
Charles W. Day v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 873 F.2d 291 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 831.1404 (1988). The board found that Day failed to provide any information concerning his financial condition, although by order of the administrative judge, issued July 28, 1988, he was advised of the nature of proof required.”
James Patrick Pierotti v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 2016 MSPB 46 (MSPB 2016).
“5 C.F.R. § 831.1404 . In determining whether living expenses are “ordinary and necessary,” the Board applies a reasonable person test, regardless of the individual’s accustomed standard of living.”
James Patrick Pierotti v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 2016 MSPB 46 (MSPB 2016).
“5 C.F.R. § 831.1404 . In determining whether living expenses are “ordinary and necessary,” the Board applies a reasonable person test, regardless of the individual’s accustomed standard of living.”
Gerald J Bialas v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 2× “ID at 13-14; see 5 C.F.R. § 831.1404 (providing that financial hardship may exist when the annuitant needs substantially all of his current income and liquid assets to meet current ordinary and necessary living expenses and liabilities).”
Lori Cline v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2023).
“5 C.F.R. § 831.1404 . Although the administrative judge did not reach the appellant’s arguments that recovery would be against equity and good conscience, his adjudication of her entitlement to an adjustment of the recovery schedule is instructive in determining her entitlement…”
Alphonso Brown v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2023).
“5 C.F.R. § 831.1404 . Thus, we agree with the administrative judge that the appellant is not entitled to a financial hardship waiver.”
Moravec v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 831.1404 (2004). 4 The final alternative ground offered by the regulation is that “recovery would be unconscionable under the circumstances.”
Nelson v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 612 F. App'x 603 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“This made it impossible to determine whether he “needs substantially all of his[ ] current income and liquid assets to meet current ordinary and necessary living expenses and liabilities,” 5 C.F.R. § 831.1404 , or to determine his “financial ability to pay at the time collection…”
Elizabeth A. Emond v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2015).
“5 C.F.R. § 831.1404 . Similarly, inasmuch as the divorce decree that the appellant submitted and upon which the administrative judge relied has now been found to be invalid, we must vacate his alternative findings that, even if the appellant were overpaid annuity benefits, she…”
Hanna v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 53 F. App'x 103 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 831.1404 (2002). Although Dr. Hanna declined to complete a Financial Resources Questionnaire, he admitted that he had certificates of deposit worth $250,000 and that he owned his own home.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.