Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
§ 42-745 Effect of registration for modification.<br />
A tribunal of this state may enforce a child support order of another state registered for purposes<br />
of modification, in the same manner as if the order had been issued by a tribunal of this state, but<br />
the registered order shall be modified only if the requirements of section 42-746, 42-747.01, or<br />
42-747.03 have been met.<br />
Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 45; Laws 2003, LB 148, § 81.<br />
Groseth v. Groseth, 257 Neb. 525, 600 N.W.2d 159 (1999)<br />
Under the Uniform Interstate Family <strong>Support</strong> Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-709(a), an<br />
issuing state loses continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support<br />
provisions of a divorce decree once both parents and all their children move away<br />
from that state.<br />
a responding state acquires jurisdiction to modify the child support provisions of a<br />
foreign decree once the following three conditions are met: (1) Both the parents and<br />
the children moved away from the issuing state; (2) one of the parents, who is a<br />
nonresident of the responding state, seeks modification in the responding state; and<br />
(3) the other parent becomes subject to the personal jurisdiction of the responding<br />
state.<br />
Hamilton v. Foster, 260 Neb. 887, 620 N.W.2d 103 (2000)<br />
UIFSA's provisions may only be used to enforce an existing support order, establish<br />
a support order where no order has previously been established, or modify an<br />
existing support order. See § § 42-714 and 42-733.<br />
Lamb v. Lamb, 14 Neb. App. 337, 707 N.W.2d 423 (2005)<br />
The silence of the Lambs when this case was decided must have been deafening…<br />
UCCJEA ≠ UIFSA<br />
The modification of another state‟s child support order must be addressed<br />
under the Uniform Interstate Family <strong>Support</strong> Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§42-701 to 42-<br />
751 (Reissue 2004).<br />
Trogdon v. Trogdon, 18 Neb. App. 313, 780 N.W.2d 45 (2010)<br />
Facts: Parties divorced in California. Mom and child later move to <strong>Nebraska</strong> and Dad moves to<br />
Washington State. Years later Mom registers the California divorce in her home state of <strong>Nebraska</strong>, and<br />
seeks to enforce against Dad in Washington. Dad is mailed a copy of the registration by the clerk of<br />
district court, and files a written objection on his own with the court, disputing the amount of alleged<br />
arrears, but not the court‘s lack of personal jurisdiction over him. Two months later, in preparation for the<br />
evidentiary hearing on his objection, he hires an attorney, who files an objection, claiming the <strong>Nebraska</strong><br />
court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. The district court rules that it did have jurisdiction. He later<br />
appeals.<br />
Held: when the father filed his objection to the registration, he asked the court to address the merits of<br />
the cause of action. This simple fact gave the <strong>Nebraska</strong> court jurisdiction over him.<br />
Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to subject and bind a particular entity<br />
to its decisions. Hunt v. Trackwell, 262 Neb. 688, 635 N.W.2d 106 (2001). Lack of<br />
personal jurisdiction may be waived and such jurisdiction conferred by the conduct<br />
of the parties. Id. For example, a party that files an answer generally denying the<br />
allegations of a petition invokes the court‘s power on an issue other than personal<br />
jurisdiction and confers on the court personal jurisdiction.<br />
Similarly, a party who does more than call a court‘s attention to the lack of personal<br />
jurisdiction by asking for affirmative relief will not later be heard to claim that the<br />
- 177 -