(A) A court that issues or modifies a court support order, or an administrative agency that issues or modifies an administrative child support order, shall impose on the obligor under the support order a processing charge in the amount of two per cent of the support payment to be collected under a support order. No court or agency may call the charge a poundage fee.
(B) In each child support case that is a Title IV-D case, the department of job and family services shall annually claim thirty-five dollars from the processing charge described in division (A) of this section for federal reporting purposes if the obligee has never received assistance under Title IV-A and the department has collected at least five hundred fifty dollars of child support for the obligee. The director of job and family services shall adopt rules under Chapter 119. of the Revised Code to implement this division, and the department shall implement this division not later than March 31, 2008.
(C) As used in this section:
(1) "Annual" means the period as defined in regulations issued by the United States secretary of health and human services to implement the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171).
(2) "Title IV-A" has the same meaning as in section 5107.02 of the Revised Code.
(3) "Title IV-D case" has the same meaning as in section 3125.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · leading case: Funkhouser v. Funkhouser, 2019-Ohio-733.
Funkhouser v. Funkhouser, 2019-Ohio-733. “R.C. 3119.27. {¶ 41} Appellant did not demonstrate in the record how, if the trial court used appellee’s gross income as $64,887 or, after the trial court determined appellee was voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed, used appellee’s gross income as $16,952, would…”
Ghanayem v. Ghanayem, 2020-Ohio-423. “" - 12 - Warren CA2018-12-138 CA2018-12-142 {¶ 39} We note that R.C. 3119.27(A) mandates the imposition of a processing fee.”
In re Adoption of S.G.L., 2024-Ohio-2248. “R.C. 3119.27(B). Accordingly, I believe some portion of Father’s $14,931 unemployment benefits would have been credited at a minimum to the current support due for the month the agency received it, as well as the processing charges relating to the current support and arrearage…”
Bajaj v. Green, 2021-Ohio-3113. “{¶ 40} Pursuant to R.C. 3119.27, a court that issues or modifies a child support order must impose on the obligor a “processing charge in the amount of two per cent of the support payment to be collected under a support order.”
Osborne v. Osborne, 2015-Ohio-3382. · cites it 10דFurthermore, the trial court’s decision only states that the additional processing charge is not within the meaning of R.C. 3119.27, without discussing why the court reached this conclusion.”
Delaware Cty. Child Support Enf't Agency v. Kise, 2021-Ohio-915, 169 N.E.3d 719. · cites it 6ד35, which was the predecessor statute to R.C. 3119.27 and R.C. 3119.28. In S.B. 180, 2000 Ohio Laws 291 , the General Assembly repealed R.”
State v. Hodge, 2015-Ohio-3724. “Based on R.C. 3119.27(A)’s mandate that courts impose a two percent processing fee on support payments, we concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that the defendant repay outstanding processing fees as part of his community control sanction for a…”
Angus v. Angus, 2014-Ohio-4225. “Angus executed an acknowledgement of paternity by affidavit under R.”
Curran v. Kelly, 2012-Ohio-218. “R.C. 3119.27(A), however, mandates that the trial court “shall impose on the obligor under the support order a processing charge that is the greater of two per cent of the support payment to be collected under a support order or one dollar per month.”
In re Z.S., 2011-Ohio-3269. “25, an acknowledgment of paternity becomes final and enforceable without ratification of the court when the acknowledgment has been entered into the birth registry and the 60–day time period for rescission under R.C. 3119.27 has passed. In re Guardianship of Elliott, Putnam App.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.27(A): 5 cases
Ghanayem v. Ghanayem, 2020-Ohio-423. “" - 12 - Warren CA2018-12-138 CA2018-12-142 {¶ 39} We note that R.C. 3119.27(A) mandates the imposition of a processing fee.”
State v. Hodge, 2015-Ohio-3724. “Based on R.C. 3119.27(A)’s mandate that courts impose a two percent processing fee on support payments, we concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that the defendant repay outstanding processing fees as part of his community control sanction for a…”
Curran v. Kelly, 2012-Ohio-218. “R.C. 3119.27(A), however, mandates that the trial court “shall impose on the obligor under the support order a processing charge that is the greater of two per cent of the support payment to be collected under a support order or one dollar per month.”
Delaware Cty. Child Support Enf't Agency v. Kise, 2021-Ohio-915, 169 N.E.3d 719. “35, which was the predecessor statute to R.C. 3119.27 and R.C. 3119.28. In S.B. 180, 2000 Ohio Laws 291 , the General Assembly repealed R.”
Osborne v. Osborne, 2015-Ohio-3382. “Furthermore, the trial court’s decision only states that the additional processing charge is not within the meaning of R.C. 3119.27, without discussing why the court reached this conclusion.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.27(B): 1 case
In re Adoption of S.G.L., 2024-Ohio-2248. “R.C. 3119.27(B). Accordingly, I believe some portion of Father’s $14,931 unemployment benefits would have been credited at a minimum to the current support due for the month the agency received it, as well as the processing charges relating to the current support and arrearage…”
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.