Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Kiplinger v. Nebraska Dept. of Nat. Resources, 282 Neb. 237, 803 N.W.2d 28 (2011)
Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, an issue of
ultimate fact that was determined by a valid and final judgment cannot be litigated
again between the same parties or their privities in any future litigation.
Collateral estoppel is applicable where (1) an identical issue was decided in a prior
action, (2) the prior action resulted in a judgment on the merits which was final, (3)
the party against whom the doctrine is to be applied was a party or was in privity with
a party to the prior action, and (4) there was an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate
the issue in the prior action.
McCarson v. McCarson, 263 Neb. 534, 641 N.W.2d 62 (2002)
Facts: Wife got pregnant during her marriage by a paramour. Later she filed for divorce while
husband was overseas with the US Military. He filed an appearance and 61 days later the court
issued the divorce and ordered him to pay child support for the child. Later wife admitted he
was not the bio father, and he filed to modify the decree and terminate the support order.
Mother, who’s uncleanliness extended also to her hands, opposed the termination of support on
grounds of res judicatta. But ex-husband was not without fault of his own…
[U]nder the traditional rule of res judicata, any rights, facts, or matter in issue
directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action
before a competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered upon the
merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be
litigated by the parties and privies. Gruber v. Gruber, 261 Neb. 914, 626 N.W.2d
582 (2001).
[T]he paternity findings in a dissolution decree constitute a final judgment.
§ 25-2001 states that “[a] district court shall have power to vacate or modify its
own judgments or orders after the term at which such judgments or orders were
made. . . (4) for fraud practiced by the successful party in obtaining the judgment
or order.”
[I]n order to set aside a judgment after term on the ground of fraud practiced by
the successful party, as provided for in § 25-2001(4), the petitioning party must
prove that due diligence was exercised by him or her at the former trial and that
the failure to secure a just decision was not attributable to his or her fault or
negligence.
Retro Support
Bowers v. Lens, 264 Neb. 465, 648 N.W.2d 294 (2002)
A judgment for retroactive alimony, i.e., alimony that should have vested and
accrued in prior months, is one which is immediately due and collectible by the
judgment creditor. This situation is distinguishable from an order in which a court
may allow a contemnor to purge his or her contempt for past-due support on an
installment basis.
(I would submit that alimony and child support are analogous under this holding) Interest on a
retroactive judgment begins to accrue on the date the district court entered its judgment)
- 166 -