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.
Conrad v. Conrad, 208 Neb. 588, 304 N.W.2d 674 (1981)<br />
Eliker v. Eliker, 206 Neb. 764, 295 N.W.2d 268 (1980)<br />
Neither of the parties is authorized to interfere with the court’s orders and only<br />
the court can determine what, if any, adjustments should be made.<br />
Continental Oil Co. v. Harris, 214 Neb. 422, 333 N.W.2d 921 (1983).<br />
[T]he office of an order nunc pro tunc is to correct a record which has been<br />
made so that it will truly record the action had, which through inadvertence or<br />
mistake was not truly recorded. It is not the function of an order nunc pro tunc to<br />
change or revise a judgment or order, or to set aside a judgment actually<br />
rendered, or to render an order different from the one actually rendered, even<br />
though such order was not the order intended.<br />
See also State v. Sims, 277 Neb. 192, 761 N.W.2d 527 (2009)<br />
[T]he general rule that a judgment is no longer open to amendment, revision,<br />
modification, or correction after the term at which it was rendered does not apply<br />
where the purpose is to correct or amend clerical or formal errors so as to make<br />
the record entry speak the truth and show the judgment which was actually<br />
rendered by the court.<br />
Given the discrepancy between the orally pronounced sentence … and the<br />
written entry relating thereto, we conclude that the orally pronounced sentence is<br />
controlling<br />
Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-2001(3) (Reissue 2008) states that “[c]lerical mistakes in<br />
judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from<br />
oversight or omission may be corrected by the court by an order nunc pro tunc at<br />
any time on the court’s initiative or on the motion of any party . . . .”<br />
Dartmann v. Dartmann, 14 Neb. App. 864, 717 N.W.2d 519 (2006)<br />
[T]he district court’s ability to discharge an arrearage of child support hinges on<br />
satisfactory proof that a judgment has been fully paid or satisfied by the act of<br />
both parties. Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-369(4) (Reissue 2004) provides, in part, that<br />
“[o]rders, decrees, and judgments for temporary or permanent support or alimony<br />
. . . have the force and effect of judgments when entered.” A court may not<br />
forgive or modify past-due child support.<br />
<strong>Child</strong> support payments become a vested right of the payee in a dissolution<br />
action as they accrue.<br />
Where the final decree is silent with respect to accrued, unpaid temporary child<br />
support, it remains a judgment against the obligated parent. However, the<br />
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 />
Eliker v. Eliker, 206 Neb. 764, 295 N.W.2d 268 (1980)<br />
Requests for admissions (made upon the county attorney) were irrelevant, not<br />
only to the proceedings under § 42-358, but to the action brought pursuant to §<br />
42-364.01 as well.<br />
When a court orders the payment of child support, it means to have such order<br />
followed. We cannot be more emphatic in that regard.<br />
- 189 -