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.
Berg v. Hayworth, 238 Neb 527, 471 N.W.2d 435 (1991)<br />
<strong>Child</strong> support payments are a vested right of the payee in a dissolution action as<br />
they accrue, and such payments may be changed only by modification of the<br />
decree.<br />
Bevard v. Kelly, 15 Neb. App. 960, 739 N.W.2d 243 (2007)<br />
A nunc pro tunc order operates to correct a clerical error or scrivener’s error, not<br />
to change or revise a judgment or order, or to set aside a judgment actually<br />
rendered, or to render an order different from the one actually rendered, even if<br />
such order was not the order intended.<br />
The true function of an order nunc pro tunc is to correct the record which has<br />
been made, so that it will truly record the action really had, but which through<br />
some inadvertence or mistake has not been truly recorded. Andrews v.<br />
<strong>Nebraska</strong> State Railway Commission, 175 Neb. 222, 121 N.W.2d 32 (1963).<br />
§ 25-2001(3) expressly provides that the court may correct clerical errors at any<br />
time either on the court’s initiative or on the motion of any party.<br />
Conrad v. Conrad, 208 Neb. 588, 304 N.W.2d 674 (1981)<br />
Eliker v. Eliker, 206 Neb. 764, 295 N.W.2d 268 (1980)<br />
Neither of the parties is authorized to interfere with the court’s orders and only<br />
the court can determine what, if any, adjustments should be made.<br />
Continental Oil Co. v. Harris, 214 Neb. 422, 333 N.W.2d 921 (1983).<br />
[T]he office of an order nunc pro tunc is to correct a record which has been<br />
made so that it will truly record the action had, which through inadvertence or<br />
mistake was not truly recorded. It is not the function of an order nunc pro tunc to<br />
change or revise a judgment or order, or to set aside a judgment actually<br />
rendered, or to render an order different from the one actually rendered, even<br />
though such order was not the order intended.<br />
See also State v. Sims, 277 Neb. 192, 761 N.W.2d 527 (2009)<br />
[T]he general rule that a judgment is no longer open to amendment, revision,<br />
modification, or correction after the term at which it was rendered does not apply<br />
where the purpose is to correct or amend clerical or formal errors so as to make<br />
the record entry speak the truth and show the judgment which was actually<br />
rendered by the court.<br />
Given the discrepancy between the orally pronounced sentence … and the<br />
written entry relating thereto, we conclude that the orally pronounced sentence is<br />
controlling<br />
Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-2001(3) (Reissue 2008) states that “[c]lerical mistakes in<br />
judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from<br />
oversight or omission may be corrected by the court by an order nunc pro tunc at<br />
any time on the court’s initiative or on the motion of any party . . . .”<br />
Dartmann v. Dartmann, 14 Neb. App. 864, 717 N.W.2d 519 (2006)<br />
[T]he district court’s ability to discharge an arrearage of child support hinges on<br />
satisfactory proof that a judgment has been fully paid or satisfied by the act of<br />
both parties. Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-369(4) (Reissue 2004) provides, in part, that<br />
“[o]rders, decrees, and judgments for temporary or permanent support or alimony<br />
- 198 -