23.06.2014 Views

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

obligation, should generally apply also when the request is to terminate a child<br />

support obligation.<br />

When a divorce decree provides for the payment of stipulated sums monthly for the<br />

support of a minor child or children, such payments become vested in the payee as<br />

they accrue, and generally, the courts are without authority to reduce the amounts of<br />

such accrued payments. The articulated exception to the vesting rule concerns<br />

situations in which the payee is equitably estopped from collecting the accrued<br />

payments.<br />

Prell v. Prell, 181 Neb. 504, 505, 149 N.W.2d 104, 105 (1967),<br />

"We hold that where the decree of divorce gives visitation rights, the law<br />

contemplates that the children shall remain within the state so that the rights may<br />

be exercised. The mother's removal of the children from the state without the<br />

consent of the father or of the court may be sufficient change of circumstances to<br />

justify the court in suspending or reducing the amount of child support payments<br />

until the children have returned to the state."<br />

Redick v. Redick, 220 Neb. 86, 368 N.W.2d 463 (1985)<br />

Pleadings: Estoppel: Proof. The burden of proof rests on the party who pleads an<br />

estoppel to establish the facts upon which the estoppel is based.<br />

Estoppel. Among the elements necessary to be proved to establish.the defense of<br />

estoppel are: conduct which amounts to a false.representation or concealment of<br />

material facts, or, at least, which.is calculated to convey the impression that the facts<br />

are otherwise.than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently<br />

attempts to assert; and action or inaction based thereon of such a.character as to<br />

change the position or status of the party claiming.the estoppel, to his injury,<br />

detriment, or prejudice.<br />

Smith v. Smith, 201 Neb. 21, 265 N.W.2d 855 (1978)<br />

In rare cases a court may find that a party is equitably estopped.from collecting installments<br />

accruing after some affirmative action.which would ordinarily terminate future installments.<br />

―The securing of the consent of the father to an adoption by another of his child is<br />

such action which by its nature should terminate.further liability for child support.‖<br />

―The courts of other jurisdictions are not in agreement as to.whether a consent to an<br />

adoption will terminate future child.support.installments if the adoption is not<br />

completed. We believe.strong equitable considerations support those cases holding<br />

it should do so.‖<br />

But see… Williams v. Williams, 206 Neb. 630, 294 N.W.2d 357 (1980), limiting Smith.<br />

State on Behalf of Hopkins v. Batt, 253 Neb. 852, 573 N.W.2d 425 (1998)<br />

Equitable estoppel is a bar which precludes a party from denying or asserting<br />

anything to the contrary of those matters established as the truth by his own deeds,<br />

acts, or representations.<br />

The elements of equitable estoppel are, as to the party estopped,<br />

(1) conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material<br />

facts or, at least, which is calculated to convey the impression that the facts<br />

are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently<br />

attempts to assert;<br />

- 67 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!