Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

A “practicing alcoholic” who lost high paying job due to alcoholism and refusal to
seek treatment cannot seek reduction in alimony.
Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 67 (2007)
Although paragraph R of the NCSG speaks only to child support, we are persuaded
that the basic subsistence limitation in that paragraph should apply with equal force
in the alimony context. As a purely logical matter, this conclusion is buttressed by
the structure of the NCGS itself. …[P]aragraph M [now § 4-213] of the NCSG
mandates that alimony be drawn from whatever income is left after child support
obligations have been determined. Prioritizing child support over alimony
indicates that of the two, child support is the more important support interest. So if
child support cannot drive an obligor’s income below the poverty line unless
specifically warranted, then a fortiori, alimony should also not be allowed to drive an
obligor’s income below the poverty line unless specifically warranted.
[A]n alimony award which drives the obligor’s income below the basic subsistence
limitation set forth in paragraph R [now § 4-218] of the Nebraska Child Support
Guidelines is presumptively an abuse of judicial discretion unless the court
specifically finds that conformity with paragraph R would work an unjust or
inappropriate result in that particular case.
[A]n obligor’s “income” available for alimony purposes is not necessarily
synonymous with taxable income. … In sum, if the combination of child support and
alimony obligations would reduce an obligor’s net income below the basic
subsistence limitation in paragraph R [now § 4-218], the trial court must make
specific findings of fact that the obligor is capable of paying that amount despite
his reported income on tax returns. If such findings are made, the court may award
alimony in excess of what would otherwise be allowed under the limit in [§ 4-218].
Alimony. The primary purpose of alimony is to assist an ex-spouse for a period of
time necessary for that individual to secure his or her own means of support.
Above all else, the duration of an alimony award must be reasonable.
Hall vs. Hall (not designated for permanent publication) (2003)
According to Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-365 (Reissue 1998), factors which should be
considered by a court in determining alimony include (1) the circumstances of the
parties; (2) the duration of the marriage; (3) the history of contributions to the marriage,
including contributions to the care and education of the children, and interruption of
personal careers or educational opportunities; and (4) the ability of the supported party
to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of any minor
children in the custody of each party. Schaefer v. Schaefer, 263 Neb. 785, 642 N.W.2d
792 (2002); Hill v. Hill, supra. In awarding alimony, a court should consider, in addition
to specific statutory criteria, the income and earning capacity of each party as well as the
general equities of each situation.
Kropf v. Kropf, 248 Neb. 614, 538 N.W.2d 496 (1995)
County attorney has no legal authority to intervene on behalf of a parent to
collect alimony in cases where child support was not also ordered. It does not
matter that the trial court referred to alimony as “spousal support.”
Section 42-347 (Reissue 1993) states, in pertinent part:
As used in sections 42-347 to 42-380, unless the context otherwise requires:
. . . .
- 172 -