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.
A future payment of child support is not accrued and vested, and therefore a court<br />
may modify the amount of child support due in the future but may generally not<br />
forgive or modify past-due child support.<br />
The general rule is that no credit is given for voluntary overpayments of child<br />
support, even if they are made under a mistaken belief that they are legally required.<br />
See also Palagi v. Palagi, 10 Neb. App. 231, 627 N.W.2d 765 (2001). Exceptions<br />
are made to the ‘no credit for voluntary overpayment rule’ when the equities of the<br />
circumstances demand it and when allowing a credit will not work a hardship on the<br />
minor children.<br />
Equitable remedies are a special blend of what is necessary, what is fair, and<br />
what is workable.<br />
Where a situation exists which is contrary to the principles of equity and which can<br />
be redressed within the scope of judicial action, a court of equity will devise a<br />
remedy to meet the situation.<br />
Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W.2d 217 (1991)<br />
It is well-recognized law in this state that an action for divorce or for modification<br />
of a divorce decree sounds in equity.<br />
[T]he fact that [the custodial parent] did not respond to [the non custodial parent]’s<br />
motion for modification of their divorce decree is not determinative of the status of<br />
the tax exemptions. [The noncustodial parent] may not be granted the exemptions<br />
simply on [the custodial parent’s] failure to respond or appear. Rather, this court,<br />
under its equity powers, balances the interests of the parties and then determines<br />
where the equities lie.<br />
Hartman v. Hartman, 265 Neb. 515, 657 N.W.2d 646 (2003)<br />
The decision to vacate an order any time during the term in which the judgment is<br />
rendered is within the discretion of the court; such a decision will be reversed only if<br />
it is shown that the district court abused its discretion. … [A] district court has<br />
equitable power to vacate a judgment during the term in which it was entered on<br />
grounds which include, but are not limited to, those enumerated in §25-2001(4).<br />
[A] decision to vacate an order within the same term is within the discretion of the<br />
court, the decision will be reversed only if it is shown that the district court abused its<br />
discretion. … An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is based<br />
upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against<br />
justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.<br />
Note: Terms of the various district courts may be found by accessing their respective rules<br />
on the Supreme Court’s web site.<br />
Henderson v. Henderson, 264 Neb. 916, 653 N.W.2d 226 (2002)<br />
A noncustodial parent is entitled to credit against a monthly child support obligation<br />
for Social Security benefits paid to his or her minor child as a result of the<br />
noncustodial parent’s post divorce disability.<br />
The credit is an equitable credit, which in no way modifies the underlying obligation<br />
to pay for the support of the dependents. See Gress v. Gress, 257 Neb. 112, 596<br />
N.W.2d 8 (Gress I)<br />
Social Security disability insurance program benefits are not means-tested public<br />
assistance benefits, but are based on prior earnings of the recipient, not on the<br />
financial need of the recipient.<br />
- 71 -