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.
Such a credit clause does not violate public policy because it is regarded as a lumpsum<br />
payment of child support, not a waiver of child support altogether. And the<br />
agreement still provides regular support for the children<br />
Klinginsmith v. Wichmann, 252 Neb. 889, 567 N.W.2d 172 (1997)<br />
[A] civil contempt proceeding cannot be the means to afford equitable relief to a<br />
party.<br />
Laschanzky v. Laschanzky, 246 Neb. 705; 523 N.W.2d 29 (1994)<br />
A court of equity does not have discretion to allow or withhold interest in cases<br />
where interest is recoverable as a matter of right.<br />
Lucero v. Lucero, 16 Neb. App. 706, 750 N.W.2d 377 (2008)<br />
The district court may, on motion and satisfactory proof that a judgment has been<br />
paid or satisfied in whole or in part by the act of the parties thereto, order it<br />
discharged and canceled of record, to the extent of the payment or satisfaction.<br />
The same principles that apply with respect to retroactivity of a new obligation to pay<br />
support, i.e., that the obligation can be retroactive to the first day of the month<br />
following the filing of a request to modify to impose (or increase) a child support<br />
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 />
- 73 -