Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Voichoskie v. Voichoskie, 215 Neb. 775, 340 N.W.2d 442 (1983)
‘“Whenever a party, who, as actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and
obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, or good faith, or other equitable
principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in
limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to
award him any remedy.” Citing Brown v. Alron, Inc., 223 Neb. 1, 7, 388 N.W.2d 67,
72 (1986).
A court should not be automatically precluded from entertaining an application to
modify a decree where the applicant is in arrears. A parent who is in arrears but is
otherwise entitled to a modification of monthly support payments should not be
denied relief under the ‘clean hands’ doctrine if the court is satisfied that he has a
valid excuse for not meeting his required payments in full, e.g., financial inability to
pay.”
However: where the evidence discloses that a party is in fact able to pay past due
support, such that he could be or has been found in contempt for the failure to pay,
he will be barred by the clean hands doctrine from requesting a modification of the
decree
Wagner v. Wagner, 262 Neb. 924, 636 N.W.2d 879 (2001)
A divorce decree does not require a parent to remain in the same employment, and
child support may be calculated based on actual income when a career change is
made in good faith.
whether the decision to leave employment was made in good faith is only one factor
to be considered, and an award of child support could be based on a parent’s
earning capacity even when the parent acted in good faith.
However, while child support may be based on a parent’s earning capacity when a
parent voluntarily leaves a higher paying job for lower paying employment, and a
reduction in the amount of that parent’s support obligation would seriously impair the
needs of the children, support may be based on a lower rate of income for the
obligated parent when he changes jobs in good faith, and there is no evidence
that the needs of the minor children will be adversely affected by the reduction
in earnings.
Wilson v. Wilson, 19 Neb. App. 103, 803 N.W.2d 520 (July 2011)
Facts: Parties divorced Oct. 2009. Decree split marital property and required Wife to vacate
marital residence by 10-31-11. No appeal taken. Wife failed to vacate and months later
Husband filed action ‘to determine amounts due under decree.’ He claimed $30,000 in extra
costs he incurred due to Wife not moving out. The DCt sustained his motion and in addition
found Wife in contempt for failure to vacate. Wife appealed, claiming the court in effect modified
the terms of the decree’s property settlement agreement without having filed for a modification.
Ct. of Appeals agreed, and reversed that portion of the order. It found that there was no
ambiguity or lack of clarity concerning what was actually ordered in the decree, and accordingly
there was nothing for the court to clarify. Held: Husband must file complaint to modify if he
doesn’t like the terms of the decree. He cannot modify the decree by a back door approach.
A trial court retains jurisdiction to determine the amounts due for alimony and child
support and to enforce its prior judgment, and included in that power to enforce its
judgment is power to determine any amounts due under the initial decree.
- 138 -