In a Decision - Schmidt v Breda -
(an "Unreported Decision") >>
the Court Held:
that since child support had been paid to plaintiff for the child's benefit, it should be assumed that plaintiff had used those funds for that purpose and it would be inequitable to grant reimbursement to defendant because it would effectively deny the child of any further support payments. Moreover, N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a precluded retroactive modifications of child support orders, except for the period of time in which the application for such a modification was pending before the court.