EDWARD LEI v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-6611-05T36611-05T3
EDWARD LEI,
Appellant,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT,
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,
Respondent.
__________________________________
Submitted: August 29, 2007 - Decided September 5, 2007
Before Judges Cuff and Lintner.
On appeal from a Final Decision of the Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development, Office of Child Support Services-Lien/Levy Unit, Case No. CS12660363A.
Edward Lei, appellant pro se.
Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Rachana R. Munshi, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Edward Lei appeals from a final decision of a Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development decision to impose a levy on appellant's bank account to recover past due child support totaling $23,648. The decision was issued on July 24, 2006. Appellant contends the levy was imposed without notice to him and is contrary to a court order suspending enforcement of his child support obligation.
Our review of the record demonstrates that appellant had notice of the decision to levy on his bank account. Appellant provided in his appendix the February 1, 2006 Notice of Levy to Obligor and the February 21, 2006 Notice of Obligor for Additional Contest Information. The latter document advised appellant of his ability to file a motion to modify his child support obligation. Notably, on March 2, 2006, appellant filed such a motion. This action belies his contention that respondent agency proceeded without notice to him.
In addition, an order dated July 24, 2006, lifted the continuance or suspension of enforcement. In short, there was no bar to enforcement of appellant's child support obligation, including the levy imposed on appellant's bank account by respondent.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-6611-05T3
September 5, 2007
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.