Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Klinginsmith v. Wichmann, 252 Neb. 889, 567 N.W.2d 172 (1997)
The portion of this case indicating that a civil contempt order is not an appealable order has been
overruled.
In Nebraska, dissolution of marriage cases are equitable in nature, [A] civil
contempt proceeding cannot be the means to afford equitable relief to a party
[see also Blaine v. Blaine, 275 Neb. 87, 744 NW2d 444 (2008), which involves
using a contempt hearing to interpret provisions of a QDRO ordered as part of the
Decree of Dissolution.]
Lenz v. Lenz, 222 Neb. 85, 382 N.W.2d 323 (1986)
A judgment must be sufficiently certain in its terms to be able to be enforced in a
manner provided by law.
[W]e hold that the part of the divorce decree in this case which ordered the payment
of “all of the expenses for the minor child’s special schooling” is indefinite, uncertain,
and incapable of enforcement. For these reasons it is fatally defective and cannot
be enforced.
But see: Druba v. Druba , 238 Neb. 279, 470 N.W.2d 176 (1991)
[A] trial court may make appropriate orders as to the manner in which expenses,
after the [dependent health] insurance payments, are to be shared. While such
an order could not result in the issuance of an execution by a clerk, the order is
enforceable through the contempt power of the court. There is no other way that
unknown future expenses can be handled.
Locke v. Volkmer, 8 Neb. App. 797, 601 N.W.2d 807 (1999)
An appellate court, reviewing a final judgment or order in a contempt proceeding,
reviews for errors appearing on the record. When reviewing a judgment for errors
appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is
supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor
unreasonable. A trial court’s factual finding in a contempt proceeding will be upheld
on appeal unless the finding is clearly erroneous.
[T]the Nebraska Supreme Court held that to be reasonable, the amount of
money that a person is required to pay in order to purge oneself of contempt
must be within the person’s ability to pay. The trial court must take into
consideration the assets and financial condition of the contemnor and his or her
ability to raise money. See Klinginsmith v. Wichmann, 252 Neb. 889, 567 N.W.2d 172
(1997)
When a party to an action fails to comply with an order of the court made for the
benefit of the opposing party, such act is ordinarily a civil contempt if there has been
willful disobedience of the court’s order, which is an essential element of civil
contempt.
Willful means the violation was committed intentionally, with knowledge that the act
was in violation of the court order. If it is impossible to comply with the order of the
court, the failure to comply is not willful.
A reasonable attorney fee may be taxed against a party found to be in contempt.
Maddux v. Maddux, 239 Neb. 239, 475 N.W.2d 524 (1991)
Discusses the distinction between civil, or coercive, and punitive contempt sanctions. When
a coercive sanction is imposed, the contemner holds the keys to his jail cell, in that the sentence
is conditioned upon his continued noncompliance. A punitive sanction is akin to a criminal
sentence, in that it is not subject to mitigation should the contemner comply with the court order.
- 38 -