KA: indexering 1.1.10, cijfers nieuw tabel lager

[cricketfan]

Dear All,

Firstly, I hope you will forgive me writing in English. I'm very happy to read replies in Dutch, which I can read quite well having lived here a few years now.

My question is this.
KA has to be paid at the top of the table rate (the table that was used by the judge in early 2009 was the 2008 one (http://www.rechtspraak.nl/NR/rdonlyres/440CE9A5-6F81-47F5-AFC5-7AB81B3738B0/0/bijlage2008eerstehelft.pdf page 11) which for the relevant number of "punten" gave 1190 for two kids.
Now, with effect from 1.1.10, 2.3% more is demanded.
But, the new (2009/10) tables actually give a lower amount of 1185 (e.g. http://www.rechtspraak.nl/NR/rdonlyres/6468C3DC-9494-40D1-8013-B0B00536D626/0/bijlage2010eerstehelft.pdf page 12).
The latter means that if the judge made the decision now based on the same (or higher) income etc. the amount of KA awarded would actually be lower.

How does it make sense that 1190*1.023 is valid today because of "indexering" and a decision made last year, whilst if the decision were made today it would be 1185?

Is there any precedent for this kind of anomaly?
And legally speaking is the 1190*1.023 today an absolutely watertight "right" even in view of the reduction in the relevant table maximum in the meantime?

It may seem like, relatively speaking, peanuts to be concerned about but not only does it all add up of course over time, but in the case concerned the ex-partner (also an expat) already fails to provide a large number of basics from this considerable monthly sum that the payer is conseqeuently forced to buy directly for the children, or else watch them suffer. I could go on at length about that and many other injustices, but that would be off-topic.

With thanks in advance for your learned contributions.

[bona fides]

The anomaly does not make sense, but legally you are bound by the decision and not by the table. The tables are in fact mere guidelines without any real legal basis. They are a means to improve consistency among judges. (So it is not certain that if the decision were made today it would be 1185. E.g. in that hypothetical situation your ex-partner could point at the anomaly to argue that the judge should deviate from the current table.)

According to the decision, you now have to pay 1190*1.023, so that's what it is unless you request revision of this decision. A request for revision based only on the anomaly almost certainly has no chance of success.

I have no explanation for the anomaly. (It does not surprise me that the adjustments to the various tables might be more refined than multiplying with a fixed percentage, but it seems all tables have lower amounts.)
_________________
Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.

[cricketfan]

Many thanks for the reply. Quite a lot of things don't make much sense to me in the world of TREMA/Nibud in this regard, such as why the "omgang" allowance is only 5 Euro per child per day and is apparently never subject to indexering... and is maintained until the amount of time spent at each household is precisely (or near enough) equal, and only then is it considered co-parenting, and only then does the calculation radically change, because as the Trema handbook puts it, there is a case of "dubbele woonlast". As if the child does not need a bedroom at each home when the time-sharing is 55/45 or 60/40.....