Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

precludes further contest of the order with respect to any matter that could have been asserted at
the time of registration.
Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 43
§ 42-745 Effect of registration for modification.
A tribunal of this state may enforce a child support order of another state registered for purposes
of modification, in the same manner as if the order had been issued by a tribunal of this state, but
the registered order shall be modified only if the requirements of section 42-746, 42-747.01, or
42-747.03 have been met.
Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 45; Laws 2003, LB 148, § 81.
Groseth v. Groseth, 257 Neb. 525, 600 N.W.2d 159 (1999)
Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-709(a), an
issuing state loses continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support
provisions of a divorce decree once both parents and all their children move away
from that state.
a responding state acquires jurisdiction to modify the child support provisions of a
foreign decree once the following three conditions are met: (1) Both the parents and
the children moved away from the issuing state; (2) one of the parents, who is a
nonresident of the responding state, seeks modification in the responding state; and
(3) the other parent becomes subject to the personal jurisdiction of the responding
state.
Hamilton v. Foster, 260 Neb. 887, 620 N.W.2d 103 (2000)
UIFSA's provisions may only be used to enforce an existing support order, establish
a support order where no order has previously been established, or modify an
existing support order. See § § 42-714 and 42-733.
Lamb v. Lamb, 14 Neb. App. 337, 707 N.W.2d 423 (2005)
The silence of the Lambs when this case was decided must have been deafening…
UCCJEA ≠ UIFSA
The modification of another state’s child support order must be addressed
under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§42-701 to 42-
751 (Reissue 2004).
Trogdon v. Trogdon, 18 Neb. App. 313, 780 N.W.2d 45 (2010)
Facts: Parties divorced in California. Mom and child later move to Nebraska and Dad moves to
Washington State. Years later Mom registers the California divorce in her home state of Nebraska, and
seeks to enforce against Dad in Washington. Dad is mailed a copy of the registration by the clerk of
district court, and files a written objection on his own with the court, disputing the amount of alleged
arrears, but not the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over him. Two months later, in preparation for the
evidentiary hearing on his objection, he hires an attorney, who files an objection, claiming the Nebraska
court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. The district court rules that it did have jurisdiction. He later
appeals.
Held: when the father filed his objection to the registration, he asked the court to address the merits of
the cause of action. This simple fact gave the Nebraska court jurisdiction over him.
Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to subject and bind a particular entity
to its decisions. Hunt v. Trackwell, 262 Neb. 688, 635 N.W.2d 106 (2001). Lack of
personal jurisdiction may be waived and such jurisdiction conferred by the conduct
of the parties. Id. For example, a party that files an answer generally denying the
- 194 -