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