Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

(7) the statute of limitation under section 42-739 precludes enforcement of some
or all of the alleged arrearages; or
(8) the alleged controlling order is not the controlling order.
(b) If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under
subsection (a) of this section, a tribunal shall stay enforcement of the registered
order, continue the proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence,
and issue other appropriate orders. An uncontested portion of the registered order
may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of this state.
I If the contesting party does not establish a defense under such subsection to the
validity or enforcement of the order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order
confirming the order.
[UIFSA] Section 42-742(a)(5) clearly provides that if “there is a defense under the
law of this state to the remedy sought,” such defense can be raised prior to
confirmation of a foreign support order. The Nebraska Supreme Court has
previously held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is a possible defense in proceedings
concerning the enforcement or modification of support orders… Truman v.
Truman, 256 Neb. 628, 633-34, 591 N.W.2d 81, 85 (1999)
Wagner v. Wagner, 275 Neb. 693, 749 N .W.2d 137 (2008)
• When multiple issues are presented to a trial court for simultaneous disposition in
the same proceeding and the court decides some of the issues, while reserving
other issues for later determination, the court’s determination of less than all the
issues is an interlocutory order and is not a final order for the purpose of an
appeal.
• Trial courts, and the clerks of those courts, should not file stamp any court-issued
document that is not meant to take legal effect.
• There must first be a final determination of the rights of the parties before there is a
judgment to be either rendered or entered.
• confusion “‘can be avoided if trial courts will, as they should, limit themselves to
entering but one final determination of the rights of the parties in a case.’”
Wilson v. Wilson, 19 Neb. App. 103, 803 N.W.2d 520 (2011)
Facts: Parties divorced Oct. 2009. Decree split marital property and required Wife to vacate
marital residence by 10-31-11. No appeal taken. Wife failed to vacate and months later
Husband filed action ‘to determine amounts due under decree.’ He claimed $30,000 in extra
costs he incurred due to Wife not moving out. The D.Ct. sustained his motion and in addition
found Wife in contempt for failure to vacate. Wife appealed, claiming the court in effect modified
the terms of the decree’s property settlement agreement without having filed for a modification.
Ct. of Appeals agreed, and reversed that portion of the order. It found that there was no
ambiguity or lack of clarity concerning what was actually ordered in the decree, and accordingly
there was nothing for the court to clarify.
Held: Husband must file complaint to modify if he doesn’t like the terms of the decree. He
cannot modify the decree by a back door approach.
A trial court retains jurisdiction to determine the amounts due for alimony and child
support and to enforce its prior judgment, and included in that power to enforce its
judgment is power to determine any amounts due under the initial decree.
A party seeking to modify a dissolution decree must show a material change of
circumstances which occurred subsequent to the entry of the original decree or a
previous modification which was not contemplated when the prior order was entered.
- 30 -