Siegel and Sarto (Child support)

The matter of *Siegel and Sarto* concerned a dispute regarding child support payments. The applicant, Siegel, sought to have a decision of the Child Support Registrar affirmed, which related to a payment made by Sarto at a time when there was no enforceable maintenance liability. The case was heard by Member Douglas M.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the payment made by Sarto was a voluntary payment or if it could be considered a payment made under an enforceable maintenance liability, despite the absence of such a liability at the time of payment. This involved an examination of the nature of the payment and the circumstances under which it was made.

Member Douglas M affirmed the decision of the Child Support Registrar. The reasoning focused on the fact that at the time the payment was made, there was no existing enforceable maintenance liability. Consequently, the payment was deemed to be voluntary and not made pursuant to any legal obligation. The court applied the principle that payments made without an existing legal obligation cannot retrospectively create or be considered as satisfying a maintenance liability that did not exist at the time of the payment.