Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Wilson v. Wilson, 19 Neb. App. 103, 803 N.W.2d 520 (July 2011)
Facts: Parties divorced Oct. 2009. Decree split marital property and required Wife to vacate
marital residence by 10-31-11. No appeal taken. Wife failed to vacate and months later
Husband filed action ‘to determine amounts due under decree.’ He claimed $30,000 in extra
costs he incurred due to Wife not moving out. The D.Ct. sustained his motion and in addition
found Wife in contempt for failure to vacate. Wife appealed, claiming the court in effect modified
the terms of the decree’s property settlement agreement without having filed for a modification.
Ct. of Appeals agreed, and reversed that portion of the order. It found that there was no
ambiguity or lack of clarity concerning what was actually ordered in the decree, and accordingly
there was nothing for the court to clarify.
Held: Husband must file complaint to modify if he doesn’t like the terms of the decree. He
cannot modify the decree by a back door approach.
A trial court retains jurisdiction to determine the amounts due for alimony and child
support and to enforce its prior judgment, and included in that power to enforce its
judgment is power to determine any amounts due under the initial decree.
A party seeking to modify a dissolution decree must show a material change of
circumstances which occurred subsequent to the entry of the original decree or a
previous modification which was not contemplated when the prior order was entered.
Modifying the amounts awarded to a parent in the decree, without following the
appropriate procedures for bringing and resolving an application to modify the
decree, was not appropriate.
Collateral Estoppel/Res Judicata
Note: The doctrines of both Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel relate to new court cases filed
that attempt to refute findings in an earlier case. Contrast with the concept of the Law of the
Case, which is used in the original case to prevent previously settled issues from becoming
unsettled in the same case.
Jensen v. Jensen, 275 Neb. 921, 750 N.W.2d 335 (2008)
[W]e have never held that the absence of a child support worksheet provides a
basis for a collateral attack on a final judgment. Once the [child support] order
became final, even without a worksheet, it was enforceable.
if a trial court fails to prepare the applicable worksheets, the parties are required to
request that such worksheet be included in the trial court’s order. Orders for child
support or modification which do not contain such worksheets will on appeal be
summarily remanded to the trial court so that it can prepare the worksheets as
required by the guidelines.
McCarson v. McCarson, 263 Neb. 534, 641 N.W.2d 62 (2002)
The applicability of the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata is a question
of law.
When a court of competent jurisdiction renders a final judgment affecting the issue of
paternity, the decision of that court is res judicata to the parties absent a fraud upon
the court. See Neb Rev. Stat. §25-2001 and §25-2008.
State v. Yelli, 247 Neb. 785, 530 N.W.2d 250 (1995)
A judgment in a civil paternity adjudication is res judicata as between the same
parties in a subsequent civil action such as a support modification proceeding.
- 30 -