Incorrect wording on child support order entered by my ex's lawyer

After an expensive and lenghty support modification, my ex's lawyer drew up
the papers to file with the court. The filed document was not signed by
either attorney, but signed by the commissioner with the words "Taken
Under Advisement" hand written across the attorney signature lines.
Neither I nor my attorney saw a copy of this document. 3 years later my
ex just happened to be reading his support papers and just happened to
notice it said his support ended when his daughter turned 18 and not when
she graduated from high school 7 months later as was in the original
order. The modification did not even address this issue, however his
attorney claimed this was a clerical error and since it had been entered
the courts, should allow his support to end. Long story short, we went to
court on a motion to vacate, had the orginal one put back with the correct
verbage for the modification. However the last 5 months have been spent
with my ex trying to get the vacated order taken under reconsideration
meaning he is still argueing that regardless of the "Clerical Error" it
should be allowed. I have my doubts that this was indeed a clerical error
but have no way to prove it. He once told our older daughter that he was
going to make me go bankrupt so I believe he is trying everything possible
to make this happen. Any attempt by my attorney to recover legal fees
have been denied by the commissioner, whom also admitted she was not
prepared to rule in the case due to her lack of knowledge on the laws
pertaining to the mishap, thus postponing the case yet another 2 weeks.
We are to date going to court for the third time to have this issue heard.
Original order to vacate was awarded, his motion to have the order to
vacate reconsidered was denied and in a week we go again to on his newest
motion to have it reconsidered heard again. When does he realize the
money he has cost himself as well as me could have paid for her entire
college!!!!!

If anyone has any suggestions as to how to hold him or his attorney
accountable for this legal blunder please let me know.

In article outparenting.com,
uneekone says...

After an expensive and lenghty support modification, my ex's lawyer drew up
the papers to file with the court. The filed document was not signed by
either attorney, but signed by the commissioner with the words "Taken
Under Advisement" hand written across the attorney signature lines.
Neither I nor my attorney saw a copy of this document. 3 years later my
ex just happened to be reading his support papers and just happened to
notice it said his support ended when his daughter turned 18 and not when
she graduated from high school 7 months later as was in the original
order.
=====
Complaints re errors/ommisions should have been heard within the time for appeal
(which expired long ago). The court ruled support ends at age 18. Period. How
does the controlling state handle cs for adults? That is the question that needs
answered. If the modified order complies with the law and there was no appeal
within the time permitted for appeal, the judge should have left it stand. An
error is not something "to prove" outside statute and that is readily available.
I cannot understnd why the judge would be confused about this. It's really
pretty basic stuff. Have you ommitted something important in your orginal post?
====
====

In article outparenting.com,
uneekone says...

After an expensive and lenghty support modification, my ex's lawyer drew up
the papers to file with the court. The filed document was not signed by
either attorney, but signed by the commissioner with the words "Taken
Under Advisement" hand written across the attorney signature lines.
Neither I nor my attorney saw a copy of this document. 3 years later my
ex just happened to be reading his support papers and just happened to
notice it said his support ended when his daughter turned 18 and not when
she graduated from high school 7 months later as was in the original
order.
=====
Complaints re errors/ommisions should have been heard within the time for appeal
(which expired long ago). The court ruled support ends at age 18. Period. How
does the controlling state handle cs for adults? That is the question that needs
answered. If the modified order complies with the law and there was no appeal
within the time permitted for appeal, the judge should have left it stand. An
error is not something "to prove" outside statute and that is readily available.
I cannot understnd why the judge would be confused about this. It's really
pretty basic stuff. Have you ommitted something important in your orginal post?
====
====

In article outparenting.com,
uneekone says...

After an expensive and lenghty support modification, my ex's lawyer drew up
the papers to file with the court. The filed document was not signed by
either attorney, but signed by the commissioner with the words "Taken
Under Advisement" hand written across the attorney signature lines.
Neither I nor my attorney saw a copy of this document. 3 years later my
ex just happened to be reading his support papers and just happened to
notice it said his support ended when his daughter turned 18 and not when
she graduated from high school 7 months later as was in the original
order.
=====
Complaints re errors/ommisions should have been heard within the time for appeal
(which expired long ago). The court ruled support ends at age 18. Period. How
does the controlling state handle cs for adults? That is the question that needs
answered. If the modified order complies with the law and there was no appeal
within the time permitted for appeal, the judge should have left it stand. An
error is not something "to prove" outside statute and that is readily available.
I cannot understnd why the judge would be confused about this. It's really
pretty basic stuff. Have you ommitted something important in your orginal post?
====
====

In article outparenting.com,
uneekone says...

After an expensive and lenghty support modification, my ex's lawyer drew up
the papers to file with the court. The filed document was not signed by
either attorney, but signed by the commissioner with the words "Taken
Under Advisement" hand written across the attorney signature lines.
Neither I nor my attorney saw a copy of this document. 3 years later my
ex just happened to be reading his support papers and just happened to
notice it said his support ended when his daughter turned 18 and not when
she graduated from high school 7 months later as was in the original
order.
=====
Complaints re errors/ommisions should have been heard within the time for appeal
(which expired long ago). The court ruled support ends at age 18. Period. How
does the controlling state handle cs for adults? That is the question that needs
answered. If the modified order complies with the law and there was no appeal
within the time permitted for appeal, the judge should have left it stand. An
error is not something "to prove" outside statute and that is readily available.
I cannot understnd why the judge would be confused about this. It's really
pretty basic stuff. Have you ommitted something important in your orginal post?
====
====

The only problem that I have with this is your final line about "him"
realizing that this could have been a better use of money for the child.
Unfortunately we see that the child support system doesn't really care
about that...it's all about the money.

Wouldn't it have been a little better to try to work this out without
needing the legal system to get involved. That way you might have struck
something that could have been a middle ground between both of you.
Instead now you have lawyers and court fees eating money, you have the
loss of work time needed for these appearances, all that money going
everywhere else except to your daughter - the one who it should go to.

Then again there would be the off chance that you would have made a deal
and then decided to declare the error before the 7-month window passed -
thereby introducing the can of worms that just got opened now.

P.S. Noting how important this matter is to you both and your daughter I
find it somewhat troubling that neither of you actually read this
agreement until three years after the fact...

The only problem that I have with this is your final line about "him"
realizing that this could have been a better use of money for the child.
Unfortunately we see that the child support system doesn't really care
about that...it's all about the money.

Wouldn't it have been a little better to try to work this out without
needing the legal system to get involved. That way you might have struck
something that could have been a middle ground between both of you.
Instead now you have lawyers and court fees eating money, you have the
loss of work time needed for these appearances, all that money going
everywhere else except to your daughter - the one who it should go to.

Then again there would be the off chance that you would have made a deal
and then decided to declare the error before the 7-month window passed -
thereby introducing the can of worms that just got opened now.

P.S. Noting how important this matter is to you both and your daughter I
find it somewhat troubling that neither of you actually read this
agreement until three years after the fact...

The only problem that I have with this is your final line about "him"
realizing that this could have been a better use of money for the child.
Unfortunately we see that the child support system doesn't really care
about that...it's all about the money.

Wouldn't it have been a little better to try to work this out without
needing the legal system to get involved. That way you might have struck
something that could have been a middle ground between both of you.
Instead now you have lawyers and court fees eating money, you have the
loss of work time needed for these appearances, all that money going
everywhere else except to your daughter - the one who it should go to.

Then again there would be the off chance that you would have made a deal
and then decided to declare the error before the 7-month window passed -
thereby introducing the can of worms that just got opened now.

P.S. Noting how important this matter is to you both and your daughter I
find it somewhat troubling that neither of you actually read this
agreement until three years after the fact...

The only problem that I have with this is your final line about "him"
realizing that this could have been a better use of money for the child.
Unfortunately we see that the child support system doesn't really care
about that...it's all about the money.

Wouldn't it have been a little better to try to work this out without
needing the legal system to get involved. That way you might have struck
something that could have been a middle ground between both of you.
Instead now you have lawyers and court fees eating money, you have the
loss of work time needed for these appearances, all that money going
everywhere else except to your daughter - the one who it should go to.

Then again there would be the off chance that you would have made a deal
and then decided to declare the error before the 7-month window passed -
thereby introducing the can of worms that just got opened now.

P.S. Noting how important this matter is to you both and your daughter I
find it somewhat troubling that neither of you actually read this
agreement until three years after the fact...

The court did not rule support ended at 18, the court ruled in our older
daughter that support continued until she graduated. Support for our
younger child was never an issue however his attorney submitted papers
changing her existing support order to reading her support ended at 18.
There is no statue of limitations in the case of a clerical error as
proven by my attorney during the hearing to vacate the incorrect order.