Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Lenz v. Lenz, 222 Neb. 85, 382 N.W.2d 323 (1986)<br />
A judgment must be sufficiently certain in its terms to be able to be enforced in a<br />
manner provided by law.<br />
[W]e hold that the part of the divorce decree in this case which ordered the payment<br />
of “all of the expenses for the minor child’s special schooling” is indefinite, uncertain,<br />
and incapable of enforcement. For these reasons it is fatally defective and cannot<br />
be enforced.<br />
But see: Druba v. Druba , 238 Neb. 279, 470 N.W.2d 176 (1991)<br />
[A] trial court may make appropriate orders as to the manner in which expenses,<br />
after the [dependent health] insurance payments, are to be shared. While such<br />
an order could not result in the issuance of an execution by a clerk, the order is<br />
enforceable through the contempt power of the court. There is no other way that<br />
unknown future expenses can be handled.<br />
Locke v. Volkmer, 8 Neb. App. 797, 601 N.W.2d 807 (1999)<br />
An appellate court, reviewing a final judgment or order in a contempt proceeding,<br />
reviews for errors appearing on the record. When reviewing a judgment for errors<br />
appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is<br />
supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor<br />
unreasonable. A trial court’s factual finding in a contempt proceeding will be upheld<br />
on appeal unless the finding is clearly erroneous.<br />
[T]the <strong>Nebraska</strong> Supreme Court held that to be reasonable, the amount of<br />
money that a person is required to pay in order to purge oneself of contempt<br />
must be within the person’s ability to pay. The trial court must take into<br />
consideration the assets and financial condition of the contemnor and his or her<br />
ability to raise money. See Klinginsmith v. Wichmann, 252 Neb. 889, 567 N.W.2d 172<br />
(1997)<br />
When a party to an action fails to comply with an order of the court made for the<br />
benefit of the opposing party, such act is ordinarily a civil contempt if there has been<br />
willful disobedience of the court’s order, which is an essential element of civil<br />
contempt.<br />
Willful means the violation was committed intentionally, with knowledge that the act<br />
was in violation of the court order. If it is impossible to comply with the order of the<br />
court, the failure to comply is not willful.<br />
A reasonable attorney fee may be taxed against a party found to be in contempt.<br />
Maddux v. Maddux, 239 Neb. 239, 475 N.W.2d 524 (1991)<br />
Discusses the distinction between civil, or coercive, and punitive contempt sanctions. When<br />
a coercive sanction is imposed, the contemner holds the keys to his jail cell, in that the sentence<br />
is conditioned upon his continued noncompliance. A punitive sanction is akin to a criminal<br />
sentence, in that it is not subject to mitigation should the contemner comply with the court order.<br />
See Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier (Smeal II), 279 Neb. 661, 782 N.W.2d 848<br />
(2010) for a reversal of caselaw regarding civil contempt orders.<br />
When a commitment to jail is utilized as a coercive sanction in a civil contempt<br />
proceeding involving willful and contumacious failure to pay child support, a court<br />
may sentence the contemner to jail for a specified period, provided the court order<br />
permits the contemner to purge himself or herself of contempt and be released from<br />
jail upon payment of a reasonable amount of money toward the back child support.<br />
- 39 -