In February 2016 , at age 66, I (Michael, husband) filed and suspended. At that time, my disabled daughter, Beth, had been receiving SSI benefits, and also was receiving a separate SSDI benefit, believed to be based on her record, in the amount of $ 419/month. Based on my filing and suspending, Beth was granted a benefit based on my record to replace her SSI benefit; she continued to receive the SSDI based on her record. At that time, I would have been entitled to $2500/month, and the total of Beth’s two benefits approximated that. (Her disability was established before she was 22). In August 2016, when she was 65, my wife, Lita, applied for SS benefits. As a result of Michael’s filing (and suspending), we believe that she was entitled to a combined/total benefit approximating half of what Michael’s benefit would have been ($2,500). SS awarded Lita $ 869.00 based on her own record, and $ 251.00 based on Michael’s records, for a total of $ 1,073.00 (after deduction for Medicare B premium). SSA paid these benefits to Beth and Lita until January 2020. SSA then notified Beth and Lita that they had been supposedly overpaid: Beth by $ 13,750.00 and Lita by $ 11,881.00 , for a total of $ 25,631.00. SSA is seeking to recover these amounts. SSA also reduced each of their benefits by approximately 25%. SSA did not give any reason for these actions. We do not know why this occurred. We believe that, in some type of internal review by the SSA, they mistakenly concluded that Michael’s filing and suspending in February 2016 was not permitted (it was), and that Beth’s and Lita’s benefits should not have been determined on the full extent of Michael’s work record. As mentioned, we believe this is what occurred but we do not know this for a fact. In order to challenge this action by SSA, and preserve Beth’s and Lita’s rights to contest, we filed letters of disagreement & Requests for Reconsideration. We also went to the Sarasota SSA office in March 2020, and was told by a representative that what SSA did in reducing Beth’s and Lita’s benefits, and seeking reimbursement for supposed overpayments, was incorrect and would be referred to another office. Nonetheless, no correction was made by that other office. Instead, on September 9, 2020 a SSA rep told me that the supposed reason for the “hold” -- based on her reading of some “notes” in the file - - was that Beth’s and Lita’s cases did not fall under the Parisi rule but should fall under the "combined family allowance" rule. While we are familiar with both of these rules, we are not sure of what this rep was saying. By the way, we had already computed the amounts that were to be received by the three of us, and they were under the Maximum Family Allowance. Also, we understand that the term that SSA uses under its regulations is “maximum” family allowance, not “combined” family allowance , so this adds further confusion as to what this rep was saying. Also: the Parisi rule and the ‘combined family allowance’ rule are not , we believe, mutually exclusive and I see no reason why our situation does not fall under Parisi. The rep said that Beth will have to apply for Social Security anew, under Lita’s (mother’s) record. (In addition, Beth will have to present proof of disability anew and must be evaluated and determined to be disabled). We do not know if this is correct, and do not believe that Beth would have to apply for benefits under Lita’s record when she already applied under my record. And we do not believe that the reductions made by SSA, or their claim of overpayments are correct. I ran the scenario under your program, and the results of your program match (more or less) with the original situation, i.e. the situation that existed before SSA reduced Beth’s and Lita’s benefits and before SSA claimed overpayments. As an aside, when I turned 70 in Feb. 2020, SSA did not start to pay me. I had to contact the regional office, and I didn’t receive payments until August (they did pay retroactively). My benefit now is $3300/month. As I understand it, only the benefit that I would have been entitled to receive at age 66 ($2,500/month) counts against the family max. This is a very confusing situation, and made more so because we have not been provided with a full explanation by SS as to why they did what they did. Thank you.

Hi,

That's a lot to unpack. I'll start by explaining that I answer questions submitted to the 'Ask Larry' site, but I don't have access to our software customers' data. Therefore, I can only address your question in general terms. You may want to resubmit your question using the help menu in your customer account. Your questions can then be answered by one of our experts with access to your customer data.

I have no reason to think that your daughter wouldn't qualify for disabled adult child (DAC) benefits on your wife's record, but she would need to apply those benefits before the family maximum benefit (FMB) rates from your and your wife's accounts to be combined. Your daughter couldn't actually receive any benefits from your wife's account if your primary insurance amount (PIA) is higher than your wife's PIA, but your daughter must establish technical entitlement to DAC benefits on your wife's account in order for the FMBs to be combined. If that wasn't done for some reason when your wife applied for her benefits, then that may explain the overpayment notices your wife and daughter received.

A person's PIA is equal to their Social Security retirement benefit rate if they start drawing their benefits at full retirement age (FRA). As DAC and spouse beneficiaries on your account, your daughter and wife could be paid no more than 50% of your PIA. And, since they're both entitled to benefits on their own work records, they each can be paid no more than the higher of their own benefit rate or 50% of your PIA. However, the FMB could limit their benefit rates to less than 50% of your PIA. And, if your wife started drawing her benefits prior to FRA then both her own rate and her excess spousal rate would be reduced for age.

The Parisi decision (https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0300615768) and combined family maximums (CMAX) aren't mutually exclusive, but the Parisi ruling doesn't really factor into your family's case. That's because dually entitled beneficiaries aren't helped by the Parisi ruling, and both your wife and daughter are dually entitled. In your wife's case, she's entitled to both retirement and spousal benefits, and in your daughter's case, she's entitled to both Social Security disability (SSDI) and DAC benefits. The Parisi ruling actually only helped non-dually entitled beneficiaries who receive auxiliary or survivor benefits on the same record with a dually entitled beneficiary. The ruling allows amounts paid to dually entitled beneficiaries on their own records to be re-distributed to non-dually entitled beneficiaries.

Still, though, as long as the applicable CMAX is at least twice as much as your PIA, your daughter and wife's benefit rates should not be adversely affected by the FMB. I would think that once your daughter establishes technical entitlement on your wife's record, that will clear up the 'overpayments' provided that the CMAX can be applied retroactively. It sounds like you've taken the proper actions by filing appeal requests, so hopefully this will all be sorted out in your favor once corrective actions are taken.

Best, Jerry