Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

We read the language of §§ 42-371and 43-1702 as a recognition by the Legislature
that execution is one of several means of collecting child support, not as a statement
that all methods of collecting child support are executions. Thus, while the income
withholding notices in this case are part of a legally authorized administrative
remedy for the collection of child support, they are not “executions” within the
meaning of § 42-371(5) because they are not processes of the court.
[The custodial parent] argues that even if she no longer had an enforceable lien, she
still had an enforceable child support judgment, and that therefore, the district court
erred in confirming the sheriff’s sale without conducting a hearing on her objections
to confirmation based upon irregularities in the sale and the amount of the sale price.
We find merit in this argument.
Child support judgments do not become dormant by lapse of time, and the fact that a
child support judgment ceases to be a lien by operation of § 42-371(5) does not
extinguish the judgment itself or cause it to become dormant.
Although [Mom #1] did not have an enforceable lien at the time of the sheriff’s sale,
she was a judgment creditor with an interest in any potential proceeds of the sale
exceeding the amount necessary to satisfy [the other custodial parent’s] lien.
Accordingly, she had standing to object to the confirmation of the sale on the ground
of irregularities which resulted in a sale price lower than fair market value.
Gallner v. Gallner, 257 Neb. 158; 595 N.W.2d 904 (1999)
Underlying Facts: Noncustodial parent sought to refinance his house, and to subordinate child
support liens to new mortgage/deed of trust. Custodial parent objected. There remained
approximately $140,000 in child support payments and $42,000 in alimony. The NCP was
current on the payments. Trial court ordered child support/ alimony liens to be subordinated to
the new mortgage/deed of trust. Mother appealed.
The relief sought by (the NCP) involves the equitable powers of the court, and
therefore, the standard of review is de novo. In an appeal of an equity action, an
appellate court tries factual questions de novo on the record and reaches a
conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court.
[T]he district court abused its discretion in quashing the subpoena [duces tecum,
seeking NCP’s recent tax returns, life insurance info, home appraisal info and
related documents as to his earning capacity]. The fact in issue is whether the
subordination requested would unduly reduce the security regarding the remaining
amount of approximately $182,000 in child support and alimony. Clearly, the items
requested by [the mother] were relevant to a determination of [the NCP’s] financial
status and whether the child support and alimony liens should be subordinated in
order to allow Michael to refinance his real estate.
NCP has the burden to demonstrate that the release or subordination is not
requested for the purpose of avoiding payment and that the release or subordination
will not unduly reduce the security. The failure to produce an appraised value of the
real estate and the failure to produce evidence of income tax returns and projected
income tax returns leaves the court without any reasonable basis for determining
whether to subordinate the child support and alimony liens. Since [the NCP] is
asking for equitable relief, it is his obligation to produce the information which will
support such relief. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in
subordinating the liens without first having sufficient information before it.
- 120 -