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.
Similarly, a party who does more than call a court’s attention to the lack of personal<br />
jurisdiction by asking for affirmative relief will not later be heard to claim that the<br />
court lacked jurisdiction over that party. Glass v. <strong>Nebraska</strong> Dept. of Motor Vehicles,<br />
248 Neb. 501, 536 N.W.2d 344 (1995).<br />
a confirmed support order cannot be contested with respect to any matter that could<br />
have been asserted at the confirmation hearing.<br />
[UIFSA] Section 42-742 goes on to enumerate the specific defenses which can be<br />
raised when contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered order and the<br />
effect of a validly raised defense. Section 42-742 provides:<br />
(a) A party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered order or seeking to vacate<br />
the registration has the burden of proving one or more of the following defenses:<br />
(1) the issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party;<br />
(2) the order was obtained by fraud;<br />
(3) the order has been vacated, suspended, or modified by a later order;<br />
(4) the issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal;<br />
(5) there is a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought;<br />
(6) full or partial payment has been made;<br />
(7) the statute of limitation under section 42-739 precludes enforcement of some<br />
or all of the alleged arrearages; or<br />
(8) the alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.<br />
(b) If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under<br />
subsection (a) of this section, a tribunal shall stay enforcement of the registered<br />
order, continue the proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence,<br />
and issue other appropriate orders. An uncontested portion of the registered order<br />
may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of this state.<br />
(c) If the contesting party does not establish a defense under such subsection to the<br />
validity or enforcement of the order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order<br />
confirming the order.<br />
[UIFSA] Section 42-742(a)(5) clearly provides that if “there is a defense under the<br />
law of this state to the remedy sought,” such defense can be raised prior to<br />
confirmation of a foreign support order. The <strong>Nebraska</strong> Supreme Court has<br />
previously held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is a possible defense in proceedings<br />
concerning the enforcement or modification of support orders… Truman v.<br />
Truman, 256 Neb. 628, 633-34, 591 N.W.2d 81, 85 (1999)<br />
Wagner v. Wagner, 275 Neb. 693, 749 N .W.2d 137 (2008)<br />
• When multiple issues are presented to a trial court for simultaneous disposition in<br />
the same proceeding and the court decides some of the issues, while reserving<br />
other issues for later determination, the court’s determination of less than all the<br />
issues is an interlocutory order and is not a final order for the purpose of an<br />
appeal.<br />
• Trial courts, and the clerks of those courts, should not file stamp any court-issued<br />
document that is not meant to take legal effect.<br />
• There must first be a final determination of the rights of the parties before there is a<br />
judgment to be either rendered or entered.<br />
• confusion “‘can be avoided if trial courts will, as they should, limit themselves to<br />
entering but one final determination of the rights of the parties in a case.’”<br />
- 29 -