Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Griess v. Griess; 9 Neb. App. 105, 608 N.W.2d 217 (2000)
Facts: A rather bizarre case. Parties’ child support was erroneously modified, and obligated
parent was then court ordered to pay much more child support than he should have been
ordered to pay under the guidelines. No one caught the error until he overpaid his support by
more than $18,000. He then filed an action seeking credit against his future child support
obligation. The court struggled with this, given that his own attorney overlooked the glaring
error, but ultimately granted an equitable credit against his future child support obligation. It was
clear that the Court of Appeals gave considerable weight in it’s decision to the fact that the
custodial parent had testified that she did not need the child support money and “never” relied
on it in providing support for her children.
Whether overpayments of child support should be credited against future child
support is a question of law.
A future payment of child support is not accrued and vested, and therefore a court
may modify the amount of child support due in the future but may generally not
forgive or modify past-due child support.
The general rule is that no credit is given for voluntary overpayments of child
support, even if they are made under a mistaken belief that they are legally required.
See also Palagi v. Palagi, 10 Neb. App. 231, 627 N.W.2d 765 (2001). Exceptions
are made to the ‘no credit for voluntary overpayment rule’ when the equities of the
circumstances demand it and when allowing a credit will not work a hardship on the
minor children.
Equitable remedies are a special blend of what is necessary, what is fair, and
what is workable.
Where a situation exists which is contrary to the principles of equity and which can
be redressed within the scope of judicial action, a court of equity will devise a
remedy to meet the situation.
Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W.2d 217 (1991)
It is well-recognized law in this state that an action for divorce or for modification
of a divorce decree sounds in equity.
[T]he fact that [the custodial parent] did not respond to [the non custodial parent]’s
motion for modification of their divorce decree is not determinative of the status of
the tax exemptions. [The noncustodial parent] may not be granted the exemptions
simply on [the custodial parent’s] failure to respond or appear. Rather, this court,
under its equity powers, balances the interests of the parties and then determines
where the equities lie.
Hartman v. Hartman, 265 Neb. 515, 657 N.W.2d 646 (2003)
The decision to vacate an order any time during the term in which the judgment is
rendered is within the discretion of the court; such a decision will be reversed only if
it is shown that the district court abused its discretion. … [A] district court has
equitable power to vacate a judgment during the term in which it was entered on
grounds which include, but are not limited to, those enumerated in §25-2001(4).
[A] decision to vacate an order within the same term is within the discretion of the
court, the decision will be reversed only if it is shown that the district court abused its
discretion. … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is based
upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against
justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.
Note: Terms of the various district courts may be found by accessing their respective rules
on the Supreme Court’s web site.
- 70 -