Hempel v. Hempel, 432 S.W.3d 730

On remand, Oldham Family Court recalculated Daniel Hempel’s child-support obligation and found an overpayment of $2,532.00.
Initially, Daniel was ordered to pay $812.50 monthly, later reduced to $558.50 after emancipation of an older child.
Remand proceedings in 2013 set Daniel’s new support at $453.00 monthly, retroactive to June 2011, with an offset provision for $211.00 monthly for 12 months to recoup overpayment.
Karen challenged the recoupment via CR 59.05; the trial court later vacated the recoupment provision.
Daniel appeals, arguing the court erred by disallowing recoupment and infringing his right to appeal.
The court analyzes Clay v. Clay and Rand v. Rand to determine whether unexpended funds or equivalents exist to permit restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recoupment of overpaid child support is permissible without unexpended funds	Daniel: recoupment feasible where unspent funds exist from support	Karen: no unexpended funds; no right to recoupment	Recoupment not allowed; no unexpended funds found
Whether college-savings accounts count as equivalent unexpended funds	Daniel: accounts are equivalent to unexpended support	Karen: accounts are irrevocable custodial assets, not unexpended support	Accounts not equivalent to unexpended child support
What rule governs restitution if a support order is vacated on appeal	Daniel relies on Rand/Clay to permit recovery from overpayment	Karen relies on Clay’s general rule disallowing restitution unless unexpended funds exist	Clay controls; general rule disallowing restitution unless unexpended funds exist; no recovery here

Clay v. Clay, 707 S.W.2d 352 (Ky.App.1986) (restitution for excess child support generally disallowed unless unexpended funds exist)
Rand v. Rand, 392 A.2d 1149 (Md.App.1978) (recognizes an exception for recovery when funds are available or equivalent)