H and W are legally separated; W purchased goods on credit from H and H has not provided W's monthly support for April. Which statement is incorrect?

• A. If W demands support for April, H may set off the debt W owes as compensation.
• B. If W demands support for May, H may claim compensation as regards the debt W owes him.
• C. If H demands payment of the debt from the sale of goods, W may set up compensation for her April support.
• D. If H demands payment of the debt from the sale of goods, W may set up compensation for her May support.

Answer: (B)

The concept being tested is set-off (compensation) of mutual obligations, which is allowed when both sides owe each other debts that are due and demandable. In a situation where spouses are separated, the obligation to provide monthly support is a claim that can be set off against money one spouse owes the other for goods or services, but only for amounts that are actually due at the time of the set-off.

Here, April’s support is already due and unpaid. When W demands that April support, H may reduce the amount W owes for the goods by the value of that April support, effectively offsetting W’s debt with the support claim. This fits the rule that a set-off occurs at a moment when the counterpart’s obligation (the support for that month) is due and demandable.

The problematic statement is the notion that, upon a demand for May support, H may claim compensation in relation to the debt W owes him. May’s support has not yet become due at the moment of the demand, so there isn’t a currently due and demandable amount to offset. Set-off requires the obligation on both sides to be due; a future month’s support isn’t eligible for offset at that time.

The other scenarios align with the same timing principle: offsets are available when the support month in question is due and the debtor’s obligation to pay for the goods is ready to be settled, whether that arises from a demand for support or from a demand for payment of the debt from the sale of goods.