Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

The same principles that apply with respect to retroactivity of a new obligation to pay
support, i.e., that the obligation can be retroactive to the first day of the month
following the filing of a request to modify to impose (or increase) a child support
obligation, should generally apply also when the request is to terminate a child
support obligation.
When a divorce decree provides for the payment of stipulated sums monthly for the
support of a minor child or children, such payments become vested in the payee as
they accrue, and generally, the courts are without authority to reduce the amounts of
such accrued payments. The articulated exception to the vesting rule concerns
situations in which the payee is equitably estopped from collecting the accrued
payments.
Prell v. Prell, 181 Neb. 504, 505, 149 N.W.2d 104, 105 (1967),
"We hold that where the decree of divorce gives visitation rights, the law
contemplates that the children shall remain within the state so that the rights may
be exercised. The mother's removal of the children from the state without the
consent of the father or of the court may be sufficient change of circumstances to
justify the court in suspending or reducing the amount of child support payments
until the children have returned to the state."
Redick v. Redick, 220 Neb. 86, 368 N.W.2d 463 (1985)
Pleadings: Estoppel: Proof. The burden of proof rests on the party who pleads an
estoppel to establish the facts upon which the estoppel is based.
Estoppel. Among the elements necessary to be proved to establish.the defense of
estoppel are: conduct which amounts to a false.representation or concealment of
material facts, or, at least, which.is calculated to convey the impression that the facts
are otherwise.than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently
attempts to assert; and action or inaction based thereon of such a.character as to
change the position or status of the party claiming.the estoppel, to his injury,
detriment, or prejudice.
Smith v. Smith, 201 Neb. 21, 265 N.W.2d 855 (1978)
In rare cases a court may find that a party is equitably estopped.from collecting installments
accruing after some affirmative action.which would ordinarily terminate future installments.
“The securing of the consent of the father to an adoption by another of his child is
such action which by its nature should terminate.further liability for child support.”
“The courts of other jurisdictions are not in agreement as to.whether a consent to an
adoption will terminate future child.support.installments if the adoption is not
completed. We believe.strong equitable considerations support those cases holding
it should do so.”
But see… Williams v. Williams, 206 Neb. 630, 294 N.W.2d 357 (1980), limiting Smith.
State on Behalf of Hopkins v. Batt, 253 Neb. 852, 573 N.W.2d 425 (1998)
Equitable estoppel is a bar which precludes a party from denying or asserting
anything to the contrary of those matters established as the truth by his own deeds,
acts, or representations.
The elements of equitable estoppel are, as to the party estopped,
(1) conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material
facts or, at least, which is calculated to convey the impression that the facts
- 71 -