23.06.2014 Views

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Spousal support, when used in the context of income withholding or any provisions of<br />

law which might lead to income withholding, shall mean alimony or maintenance support<br />

for a spouse or former spouse when ordered as a part of an order, decree, or judgment<br />

which provides for child support and the child and spouse or former spouse are living in<br />

the same household.<br />

Lambert v. Lambert, 9 Neb. App. 661, 617 N.W.2d 645 (2000)<br />

A petition for modification of child support or alimony will be denied if a change in<br />

financial condition is due to fault or voluntary wastage or dissipation of one’s<br />

talents and assets. In this case, parent was fired for choosing to smoke marijuana.<br />

Material change in circumstances in reference to modification of child support is<br />

analogous to modification of alimony for good cause.<br />

Mastrocesare vs. Mastrocesare, 2 Neb. App. 231, 507 N.W.2d 683 (1993)<br />

…Citing Section 42-347(4), which states:<br />

Spousal support, when used in the context of income withholding or any<br />

provisions of law which might lead to income withholding, shall mean alimony or<br />

maintenance support for a spouse or former spouse when ordered as a part of<br />

an order, decree, or judgment which provides for child support and the child and<br />

spouse or former spouse are living in the same household.<br />

§43-1715 defines spousal support almost identically.<br />

Despite the statutory definition of spousal support, it is evident that the term “spousal<br />

support” and the term “alimony” are commonly used interchangeably.<br />

Metcalf v. Metcalf, 278 Neb. 258, 769 N.W.2d 386 (2009)<br />

The Metcalf decision essentially means that once a party tries and fails to modify their support<br />

order, they will have a more difficult time trying a second time to obtain a modification.<br />

We determine that in cases where there has been a previous attempt to modify<br />

support, the court must first consider whether circumstances have changed since<br />

the most recent [albeit failed] request for modification. But when considering<br />

whether there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances<br />

justifying modification, the court will consider the change in circumstances since the<br />

date of the last order establishing or modifying alimony. In other words, a judgment<br />

for alimony may be modified only upon a showing of facts or circumstances<br />

that have changed since the last order granting or denying modification was<br />

entered. But once some change has been established since the last request,<br />

the analysis focuses on the change in circumstances since alimony was<br />

originally awarded or last modified. We adopt this rule because it recognizes the<br />

force of res judicata; modification will be considered only when there has been a<br />

change in circumstances since the last request for modification. But if there has<br />

been no change, modification is not justified, because the request is essentially the<br />

same as the last request.<br />

If there has been no change between the most recent modification request and the<br />

current request, the current modification is barred by res judicata.<br />

Millatmal v. Millatmal, 272 Neb. 452, 723 N.W.2d 79 (2006)<br />

We will affirm a trial court’s award of alimony unless it is so untenable as to deprive<br />

a party of a substantial right or just result.<br />

- 173 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!