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 “practicing alcoholic” who lost high paying job due to alcoholism and refusal to<br />
seek treatment cannot seek reduction in alimony.<br />
Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 67 (2007)<br />
Although paragraph R of the NCSG speaks only to child support, we are persuaded<br />
that the basic subsistence limitation in that paragraph should apply with equal force<br />
in the alimony context. As a purely logical matter, this conclusion is buttressed by<br />
the structure of the NCGS itself. …[P]aragraph M [now § 4-213] of the NCSG<br />
mandates that alimony be drawn from whatever income is left after child support<br />
obligations have been determined. Prioritizing child support over alimony<br />
indicates that of the two, child support is the more important support interest. So if<br />
child support cannot drive an obligor’s income below the poverty line unless<br />
specifically warranted, then a fortiori, alimony should also not be allowed to drive an<br />
obligor’s income below the poverty line unless specifically warranted.<br />
[A]n alimony award which drives the obligor’s income below the basic subsistence<br />
limitation set forth in paragraph R [now § 4-218] of the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong><br />
Guidelines is presumptively an abuse of judicial discretion unless the court<br />
specifically finds that conformity with paragraph R would work an unjust or<br />
inappropriate result in that particular case.<br />
[A]n obligor’s “income” available for alimony purposes is not necessarily<br />
synonymous with taxable income. … In sum, if the combination of child support and<br />
alimony obligations would reduce an obligor’s net income below the basic<br />
subsistence limitation in paragraph R [now § 4-218], the trial court must make<br />
specific findings of fact that the obligor is capable of paying that amount despite<br />
his reported income on tax returns. If such findings are made, the court may award<br />
alimony in excess of what would otherwise be allowed under the limit in [§ 4-218].<br />
Alimony. The primary purpose of alimony is to assist an ex-spouse for a period of<br />
time necessary for that individual to secure his or her own means of support.<br />
Above all else, the duration of an alimony award must be reasonable.<br />
Hall vs. Hall (not designated for permanent publication) (2003)<br />
According to Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-365 (Reissue 1998), factors which should be<br />
considered by a court in determining alimony include (1) the circumstances of the<br />
parties; (2) the duration of the marriage; (3) the history of contributions to the marriage,<br />
including contributions to the care and education of the children, and interruption of<br />
personal careers or educational opportunities; and (4) the ability of the supported party<br />
to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the interests of any minor<br />
children in the custody of each party. Schaefer v. Schaefer, 263 Neb. 785, 642 N.W.2d<br />
792 (2002); Hill v. Hill, supra. In awarding alimony, a court should consider, in addition<br />
to specific statutory criteria, the income and earning capacity of each party as well as the<br />
general equities of each situation.<br />
Kropf v. Kropf, 248 Neb. 614, 538 N.W.2d 496 (1995)<br />
<strong>County</strong> attorney has no legal authority to intervene on behalf of a parent to<br />
collect alimony in cases where child support was not also ordered. It does not<br />
matter that the trial court referred to alimony as “spousal support.”<br />
Section 42-347 (Reissue 1993) states, in pertinent part:<br />
As used in sections 42-347 to 42-380, unless the context otherwise requires:<br />
. . . .<br />
- 172 -