Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Spousal support, when used in the context of income withholding or any
provisions of law which might lead to income withholding, shall mean alimony or
maintenance support for a spouse or former spouse when ordered as a part of
an order, decree, or judgment which provides for child support and the child and
spouse or former spouse are living in the same household.
§43-1715 defines spousal support almost identically.
Despite the statutory definition of spousal support, it is evident that the term ―spousal
support‖ and the term ―alimony‖ are commonly used interchangeably.
Metcalf v. Metcalf, 278 Neb. 258, 769 N.W.2d 386 (2009)
The Metcalf decision essentially means that once a party tries and fails to modify their support
order, they will have a more difficult time trying a second time to obtain a modification.
We determine that in cases where there has been a previous attempt to modify
support, the court must first consider whether circumstances have changed since
the most recent [albeit failed] request for modification. But when considering
whether there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances
justifying modification, the court will consider the change in circumstances since the
date of the last order establishing or modifying alimony. In other words, a judgment
for alimony may be modified only upon a showing of facts or circumstances
that have changed since the last order granting or denying modification was
entered. But once some change has been established since the last request,
the analysis focuses on the change in circumstances since alimony was
originally awarded or last modified. We adopt this rule because it recognizes the
force of res judicata; modification will be considered only when there has been a
change in circumstances since the last request for modification. But if there has
been no change, modification is not justified, because the request is essentially the
same as the last request.
If there has been no change between the most recent modification request and the
current request, the current modification is barred by res judicata.
Millatmal v. Millatmal, 272 Neb. 452, 723 N.W.2d 79 (2006)
We will affirm a trial court‘s award of alimony unless it is so untenable as to deprive
a party of a substantial right or just result.
Pope v. Pope, 251 Neb. 773, 559 N.W.2d 192 (1997)
Parent terminated from employment for sleeping on the job not entitled to reduction
in alimony. Reduction in earnings does not rise to the ―good cause‖ threshold.
Simpson v. Simpson, 275 Neb. 152, 744 N.W.2d 710 (2008)
[A]n increase in income is a circumstance that may be considered in determining
whether alimony should be modified. … [A] party‘s increase in income is considered
in conjunction with changes in the other party‘s situation.
Although an increase in the income of the spouse paying maintenance is a relevant
factor for the trial court to consider, it alone does not require the court to modify the
amount of maintenance previously ordered.
Alimony should not be used to equalize the incomes of the parties or to punish one
of the parties.
- 166 -