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.
enefits, unless the allowance of such credit, in the particular case, would be<br />
inequitable.<br />
Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 67 (2007) (Gress II)<br />
Facts: This case is a real treasure trove of case law relating to many aspects of what we do.<br />
<strong>Child</strong> of parties has Down’s syndrome and receives social security benefits on account of that<br />
condition. NCP wanted his child support reduced because child was receiving social security<br />
benefits. Supreme Court said No!<br />
The federal government provides Social Security to special needs children with the<br />
intent that it will supplement other income, not substitute for it.<br />
special-needs children require additional financial support to overcome<br />
developmental, cognitive, or physiological problems. With this in mind, the federal<br />
government provides Social Security to such children with the intent that it will<br />
“supplement other income, not substitute for it.” In contrast, the money allocated to<br />
the youngest child under the NCSG is meant to provide for the basic needs all<br />
children have. To construe one source of money as satisfying both needs would<br />
leave either his basic or his special needs unfulfilled.<br />
[I]t not appropriate to offset child support costs where, as here, the Social Security<br />
benefits are intended to mitigate the additional costs that accompany disabilities.<br />
Griess v. Griess; 9 Neb. App. 105, 608 N.W.2d 217 (2000)<br />
Facts: A rather bizarre case. Parties’ child support was erroneously modified, and obligated<br />
parent was then court ordered to pay much more child support than he should have been<br />
ordered to pay under the guidelines. No one caught the error until he overpaid his support by<br />
more than $18,000. He then filed an action seeking credit against his future child support<br />
obligation. The court struggled with this, given that his own attorney overlooked the glaring<br />
error, but ultimately granted an equitable credit against his future child support obligation. It was<br />
clear that the Court of Appeals gave considerable weight in it’s decision to the fact that the<br />
custodial parent had testified that she did not need the child support money and “never” relied<br />
on it in providing support for her children.<br />
Whether overpayments of child support should be credited against future child<br />
support is a question of law.<br />
A future payment of child support is not accrued and vested, and therefore a court<br />
may modify the amount of child support due in the future but may generally not<br />
forgive or modify past-due child support.<br />
The general rule is that no credit is given for voluntary overpayments of child<br />
support, even if they are made under a mistaken belief that they are legally required.<br />
See also Palagi v. Palagi, 10 Neb. App. 231, 627 N.W.2d 765 (2001). Exceptions<br />
are made to the ‘no credit for voluntary overpayment rule’ when the equities of the<br />
circumstances demand it and when allowing a credit will not work a hardship on the<br />
minor children.<br />
Equitable remedies are a special blend of what is necessary, what is fair, and<br />
what is workable.<br />
Where a situation exists which is contrary to the principles of equity and which can<br />
be redressed within the scope of judicial action, a court of equity will devise a<br />
remedy to meet the situation.<br />
Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W.2d 217 (1991)<br />
It is well-recognized law in this state that an action for divorce or for modification<br />
of a divorce decree sounds in equity.<br />
- 68 -