Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

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.
See Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier (Smeal II), 279 Neb. 661, ___ N.W.2d ___
(April 2010) for a reversal of caselaw regarding civil contempt orders.
When a commitment to jail is utilized as a coercive sanction in a civil contempt
proceeding involving willful and contumacious failure to pay child support, a court
may sentence the contemner to jail for a specified period, provided the court order
permits the contemner to purge himself or herself of contempt and be released from
jail upon payment of a reasonable amount of money toward the back child support.
To be reasonable, the amount of money required to be paid for a contemner to
purge himself or herself of contempt of court must be within the contemner‘s ability
to pay. The trial court may take into consideration not only the assets and financial
condition of the contemner and the contemner‟s ability to raise money, but also
the contemner‘s ability to earn money through a work release program while the
contemner serves the coercive sanction in jail. If a contemner complains that he
or she does not have the ability to comply with the purge order, the burden is
on them to prove that inability.
Mays v. Mays, 229 Neb. 674, 428 N.W.2d 618 (1988)
Of course this came out of Sarpy County…
absent an application and notice requesting modification, a trial court has no power
to modify, during the course of contempt proceedings, the terms of an earlier order
for support or division of property.
Penn Cal, L.L.C. v. Penn Cal Dairy, 264 Neb. 122, 646 N.W.2d 601 (2002)
The district courts of this state have the inherent power to enforce compliance with
court orders and judgments through contempt proceedings.
Given the district court‘s inherent power to punish individuals for contempt of its
orders, a Nebraska district court has the inherent power to punish a judgment debtor
for his contempt of a foreign judgment which had been properly registered under
the Nebraska Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA).
Richardson v. Anderson, 8 Neb. App. 923, 604 N.W.2d 427 (2000)
Discusses also the Clean Hands Doctrine. Some great language….
- 38 -