Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
[UIFSA] Section 42-742(a)(5) clearly provides that if ―there is a defense under the<br />
law of this state to the remedy sought,‖ such defense can be raised prior to<br />
confirmation of a foreign support order. The <strong>Nebraska</strong> Supreme Court has<br />
previously held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is a possible defense in proceedings<br />
concerning the enforcement or modification of support orders… Truman v.<br />
Truman, 256 Neb. 628, 633-34, 591 N.W.2d 81, 85 (1999)<br />
Wagner v. Wagner, 275 Neb. 693, 749 N .W.2d 137 (2008)<br />
• When multiple issues are presented to a trial court for simultaneous disposition in<br />
the same proceeding and the court decides some of the issues, while reserving<br />
other issues for later determination, the court‘s determination of less than all the<br />
issues is an interlocutory order and is not a final order for the purpose of an<br />
appeal.<br />
• Trial courts, and the clerks of those courts, should not file stamp any court-issued<br />
document that is not meant to take legal effect.<br />
• There must first be a final determination of the rights of the parties before there is a<br />
judgment to be either rendered or entered.<br />
• confusion ―‗can be avoided if trial courts will, as they should, limit themselves to<br />
entering but one final determination of the rights of the parties in a case.‘‖<br />
Wilson v. Wilson, 19 Neb. App. 103, ____ N.W.2d ____ (July 2011)<br />
Facts: Parties divorced Oct. 2009. Decree split marital property and required Wife to vacate<br />
marital residence by 10-31-11. No appeal taken. Wife failed to vacate and months later<br />
Husband filed action ‗to determine amounts due under decree.‘ He claimed $30,000 in extra<br />
costs he incurred due to Wife not moving out. The D.Ct. sustained his motion and in addition<br />
found Wife in contempt for failure to vacate. Wife appealed, claiming the court in effect modified<br />
the terms of the decree‘s property settlement agreement without having filed for a modification.<br />
Ct. of Appeals agreed, and reversed that portion of the order. It found that there was no<br />
ambiguity or lack of clarity concerning what was actually ordered in the decree, and accordingly<br />
there was nothing for the court to clarify.<br />
Held: Husband must file complaint to modify if he doesn‘t like the terms of the decree. He<br />
cannot modify the decree by a back door approach.<br />
A trial court retains jurisdiction to determine the amounts due for alimony and child<br />
support and to enforce its prior judgment, and included in that power to enforce its<br />
judgment is power to determine any amounts due under the initial decree.<br />
A party seeking to modify a dissolution decree must show a material change of<br />
circumstances which occurred subsequent to the entry of the original decree or a<br />
previous modification which was not contemplated when the prior order was entered.<br />
Modifying the amounts awarded to a parent in the decree, without following the<br />
appropriate procedures for bringing and resolving an application to modify the<br />
decree, was not appropriate.<br />
Collateral Estoppel/Res Judicata<br />
Note: The doctrines of both Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel relate to new court cases filed<br />
that attempt to refute findings in an earlier case. Contrast with the concept of the Law of the<br />
Case, which is used in the original case to prevent previously settled issues from becoming<br />
unsettled in the same case.<br />
- 29 -