Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Nebraska</strong> courts, through their inherent judicial power, have the authority to do all<br />
things reasonably necessary for the proper administration of justice. And this<br />
authority exists apart from any statutory grant of authority. The power to punish for<br />
contempt is incident to every judicial tribune. It is derived from a court’s constitutional<br />
power, without any expressed statutory aid, and is inherent in all courts of record.<br />
A court of equity has the power to interpret its own injunctive decree if a party later<br />
claims that a provision is unclear. The critical question for appeal purposes is<br />
whether a clarification order merely interprets an injunctive decree or whether it<br />
modifies the decree in a way that affects a party’s substantial right.<br />
An appellate court, reviewing a final judgment or order in a contempt proceeding,<br />
reviews for errors appearing on the record. When reviewing a judgment for errors<br />
appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is<br />
supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor<br />
unreasonable.<br />
Under <strong>Nebraska</strong> law, an order of contempt in a postjudgment proceeding to enforce<br />
a previous final judgment is properly classified as a final order; the contempt order<br />
affects a substantial right, made upon a summary application in an action after<br />
judgment.<br />
For appeal purposes, the distinction between criminal and civil contempt sanctions<br />
has no relevance to whether a party may appeal from a final order in a supplemental<br />
postjudgment contempt proceeding.<br />
A trial court’s factual finding in a contempt pro eding will be upheld on appeal<br />
unless the finding is clearly erroneous.<br />
When a party to an action fails to comply with a court order made for the benefit of<br />
the opposing party, such act is ordinarily a civil contempt, which requires willful<br />
disobedience as an essential element. “Willful” means the violation was<br />
committed intentionally, with knowledge that the act violated the court order.<br />
A court cannot hold a person or party in contempt unless the order or consent<br />
decree gave clear warning that the conduct in question was required or proscribed.<br />
In civil cases, when a party’s interests are substantial and involve more than the<br />
mere loss of money, but obviously do not involve a criminal conviction, due process<br />
is satisfied by an intermediate “clear and convincing” standard of proof. Proof<br />
beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal trial protection that does not apply to civil<br />
contempt proceedings.<br />
As of the date of this opinion (April 16, 2010), outside of statutory procedures<br />
imposing a different standard, it is the complainant’s burden to prove civil contempt<br />
by clear and convincing evidence.<br />
State v. Collins, 281 Neb. 927, 799 N.W.2d 693 (2011)<br />
[A]n issue not presented to or decided on by the trial court is not an appropriate<br />
issue for consideration on appeal. [W]e have applied those principles to find waiver<br />
of statutory and even constitutional rights when a defendant fails to raise them.<br />
Szawicki v. Szawicki, 17 Neb. App. 820, 770 N.W.2d 676 (2009)<br />
Briefly speaking….<br />
A party filing a cross-appeal must set forth a separate division of the brief prepared<br />
in the same manner and under the same rules as the brief of appellant. See, Neb.<br />
Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4); Vokal v. <strong>Nebraska</strong> Acct. & Disclosure Comm., 276<br />
Neb. 988, 795 N.W.2d 75 (2009)<br />
- 13 -