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.
Although an increase in the income of the spouse paying maintenance is a relevant<br />
factor for the trial court to consider, it alone does not require the court to modify the<br />
amount of maintenance previously ordered.<br />
Alimony should not be used to equalize the incomes of the parties or to punish one<br />
of the parties.<br />
[A] petition to modify alimony will be denied if the change in financial condition is due<br />
to the fault or voluntary wastage or dissipation of one’s talents or assets.<br />
We do not consider … (personal differences with her employer, which precipitated<br />
the CP quitting her job)…. To be a material and substantial change of circumstances.<br />
[E]vidence of [the NCPs] increased income does not constitute, in and of itself, a<br />
material and substantial change in circumstances, without a proven increase in [the<br />
CPs] living expenses.<br />
Spady v. Spady, 284 Neb. 885 (December 2012)<br />
The word “support” in § 42-351(2) is not by its terms limited to child support. Further,<br />
we look to the immediately preceding provision, § 42-351(1), which refers to “support<br />
of minor children [and] the support of either party.” Section 42-351(1) shows that the<br />
word “support” is used statutorily in § 42-351 to refer to child support and spousal<br />
support, i.e., alimony.<br />
Our analysis and the district court’s continuation of “temporary alimony” during the<br />
appeal are also consistent with the historical jurisprudence surrounding the manner<br />
by which an alimony award can be accepted pending appeal without losing the<br />
potential to challenge the adequacy of the amount on appeal. See Larabee v.<br />
Larabee, 128 Neb. 560, 259 N.W. 520 (1935) (stating that one who voluntarily<br />
accepts payment of part of judgment in his or her favor loses right to prosecute<br />
appeal). But see Reynek v. Reynek, 193 Neb. 404, 227 N.W.2d 578 (1975)<br />
(concluding that acceptance of property settlement did not forfeit right to appeal child<br />
custody).<br />
By making the alimony award “temporary” pending appeal, the recipient is not at risk<br />
of losing the opportunity to challenge the award.<br />
The district court’s order…followed the practice of awarding “temporary alimony”<br />
pending appeal and was both authorized statutorily and consistent with our<br />
jurisprudence. The district court had jurisdiction to issue the…order, and it is not<br />
void. Paul’s failure to pay temporary alimony to Carolyn in violation of the…order<br />
was subject to contempt….<br />
Zoubenko v. Zoubenko, 19 Neb. App. 582 (March 2012)<br />
[T]he primary purpose of alimony is to assist an ex-spouse for a period of time<br />
necessary for that individual to secure his or her own means of support, and the<br />
duration of an alimony award must be reasonable in light of this purpose.<br />
Factors which should be considered by a court in determining alimony include: (1)<br />
the circumstances of the parties; (2) the duration of the marriage; (3) the history of<br />
contributions to the marriage, including contributions to the care and education of the<br />
children, and interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities; and (4)<br />
the ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without interfering<br />
with the interests of any minor children in the custody of each party. Kalkowski v.<br />
Kalkowski, supra. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-365 (Reissue 2008).<br />
- 182 -