Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 67 (2007) (Gress II)
Facts: This case is a real treasure trove of case law relating to many aspects of what we do.
Child of parties has Down’s syndrome and receives social security benefits on account of that
condition. NCP wanted his child support reduced because child was receiving social security
benefits. Supreme Court said No!
The federal government provides Social Security to special needs children with the
intent that it will supplement other income, not substitute for it.
special-needs children require additional financial support to overcome
developmental, cognitive, or physiological problems. With this in mind, the federal
government provides Social Security to such children with the intent that it will
―supplement other income, not substitute for it.‖ In contrast, the money allocated to
the youngest child under the NCSG is meant to provide for the basic needs all
children have. To construe one source of money as satisfying both needs would
leave either his basic or his special needs unfulfilled.
[I]t not appropriate to offset child support costs where, as here, the Social Security
benefits are intended to mitigate the additional costs that accompany disabilities.
Griess v. Griess; 9 Neb. App. 105, 608 N.W.2d 217 (2000)
Facts: A rather bizarre case. Parties’ child support was erroneously modified, and obligated
parent was then court ordered to pay much more child support than he should have been
ordered to pay under the guidelines. No one caught the error until he overpaid his support by
more than $18,000. He then filed an action seeking credit against his future child support
obligation. The court struggled with this, given that his own attorney overlooked the glaring
error, but ultimately granted an equitable credit against his future child support obligation. It was
clear that the Court of Appeals gave considerable weight in it’s decision to the fact that the
custodial parent had testified that she did not need the child support money and “never” relied
on it in providing support for her children.
Whether overpayments of child support should be credited against future child
support is a question of law.
A future payment of child support is not accrued and vested, and therefore a court
may modify the amount of child support due in the future but may generally not
forgive or modify past-due child support.
The general rule is that no credit is given for voluntary overpayments of child
support, even if they are made under a mistaken belief that they are legally required.
See also Palagi v. Palagi, 10 Neb. App. 231, 627 N.W.2d 765 (2001). Exceptions
are made to the ‗no credit for voluntary overpayment rule‘ when the equities of the
circumstances demand it and when allowing a credit will not work a hardship on the
minor children.
Equitable remedies are a special blend of what is necessary, what is fair, and
what is workable.
Where a situation exists which is contrary to the principles of equity and which can
be redressed within the scope of judicial action, a court of equity will devise a
remedy to meet the situation.
Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W.2d 217 (1991)
It is well-recognized law in this state that an action for divorce or for modification
of a divorce decree sounds in equity.
[T]he fact that [the custodial parent] did not respond to [the non custodial parent]‘s
motion for modification of their divorce decree is not determinative of the status of
- 64 -