South Carolina House Bill H3009

South Carolina 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/14/25

Caption

Alimony

Impact

The bill is set to have significant implications for state laws regarding alimony and its enforcement. By granting the Department of Social Services expanded authority to enforce alimony orders, the legislation seeks to streamline the collection process and improve compliance among those obligated to pay. This is particularly important for ensuring that individuals entitled to these payments, often former spouses or partners, receive the necessary financial support that is mandated by the courts. The retroactive application of the act allows for the recovery of alimony obligations that have accrued in the past ten years, which may provide relief for many individuals who have been unable to collect payments due to previous enforcement barriers.

Summary

House Bill H3009 aims to amend the South Carolina Code of Laws by empowering the Department of Social Services' Division of Child Support Enforcement with the authority to enforce certain alimony obligations. This bill includes provisions that require any court or administrative order involving alimony to contain the social security numbers of both obligors and obligees, establishing a clearer process for enforcing these obligations. Additional amendments to various sections of the legislation further clarify and redefine the roles and responsibilities of the courts and the Child Support Enforcement Division in the enforcement of both child support and alimony.

Contention

Notably, the bill contains provisions that may generate some debates regarding the extent of governmental control over personal financial obligations. Supporters argue that by allowing for the administrative enforcement of alimony obligations, the state can better protect the rights of individuals to receive their rightful payments without prolonged legal disputes. Conversely, critics may raise concerns about the potential overreach of state power into private matters, questioning whether enhanced state enforcement truly serves the best interests of affected families or if it complicates existing legal frameworks. Additionally, stakeholders might view the retroactive enforcement capability as unjust, especially for those who may have made financial plans or decisions based on previous legal interpretations.