Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

contumacious, but it provides no reason to entirely discharge Sivick’s reimbursement
obligation.
Spady v. Spady, 284 Neb. 885 (December 2012)
The word “support” in § 42-351(2) is not by its terms limited to child support. Further,
we look to the immediately preceding provision, § 42-351(1), which refers to “support
of minor children [and] the support of either party.” Section 42-351(1) shows that the
word “support” is used statutorily in § 42-351 to refer to child support and spousal
support, i.e., alimony.
Components of a series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject
matter are in pari materia and should be conjunctively considered and construed to
determine the intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions are consistent,
harmonious, and sensible. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gridiron Mgmt. Group, 281 Neb.
113, 794 N.W.2d 143 (2011).
Tax Exemptions
Emery v. Moffett, 269 Neb. 867, 697 N.W.2d 249 (2005)
Foster v. Foster, 266 Neb. 32, 662 NW2d 191 (2003), and…
Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W.2d 217 (1991)
We hold that a tax dependency exemption is nearly identical in nature to an award of
child support or alimony and is thus capable of being modified as an order of
support.
Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W.2d 217 (1991)
[T]he fact that [the custodial parent] did not respond to [the non custodial parent]’s
motion for modification of their divorce decree is not determinative of the status of
the tax exemptions. [The noncustodial parent] may not be granted the exemptions
simply on [the custodial parent’s] failure to respond or appear. Rather, this court,
under its equity powers, balances the interests of the parties and then determines
where the equities lie.
The trial court in this case did not specifically allocate the tax exemptions. However,
since federal tax laws determine the placement of the exemptions absent
reallocation by the state court, the custodial parent is presumed to retain the tax
exemptions.
- 185 -