Czaplewski v. Czaplewski
| Decision Date | 08 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. S-89-831,S-89-831 |
| Parties | Janell M. CZAPLEWSKI, Appellant, v. Steven L. CZAPLEWSKI, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Modification of Decree: Child Support: Appeal and Error. The standard of review on matters of child support modifications is de novo on the record, but the trial court's decision will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
2. Modification of Decree: Child Support. Modification of an award of child support is not justified unless the applicant proves that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the decree or a previous modification.
3. Child Support. A trial judge does not satisfy his duty to equitably determine child support by blindly following suggested guidelines.
John S. Mingus, of Mingus & Mingus, Ravenna, for appellant.
James D. Smith, of Brock, Seiler & Smith, Hastings, for appellee.
In an action for the modification of child support for the parties' two children, the court increased appellee father's child support obligation from $150 to $270 per month. The court further ordered that the amount be reduced to $190 per month when the eldest child became of age or upon further order of the court.
Appellant mother, Janell M. Czaplewski, and appellee father, Steven L. Czaplewski The mother nevertheless appeals to this court, contending that the trial judge ought not have considered the fact that Mr. Czaplewski now has another child from a subsequent marriage to support.
were divorced by a dissolution decree in July 1976, with the mother receiving custody of the couple's two minor children and with the father required to pay $150 per month in child support. In 1982, the obligation was increased to $120 per child, and again reduced to a flat $150 per month in November 1986. In December 1988 the mother again requested a child support modification when the father obtained a new job with the U.S. Postal Service. The fact that the father's child support obligation should be increased was not contested, and on June 16, 1989, the court did modify the obligation, increasing the amount to $270 per month.
The standard of review on matters of child support modifications is de novo on the record, but the trial court's decision will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. Empfield v. Empfield, 229 Neb. 83, 425 N.W.2d 334 (1988).
Modification of an award of child support is not justified unless the applicant proves that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the decree or a previous modification. Empfield v. Empfield, supra; Dobbins v. Dobbins, 226 Neb. 465, 411 N.W.2d 644 (1987).
As we noted in Brandt v. Brandt, 227 Neb. 325, 417 N.W.2d 339 (1988), a trial judge does not satisfy his duty to equitably determine child support by blindly following suggested guidelines. The Nebraska Child Support Guidelines are, by their very nature, simply guidelines. While we have required since 1987, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewer v. Brewer
...requires a material change in circumstances. See, Wulff v. Wulff, 243 Neb. 616, 500 N.W.2d 845 (1993); Czaplewski v. Czaplewski, 240 Neb. 629, 483 N.W.2d 751 (1992). Here, no change in the amount of payment is requested; the only change is the source of that payment. Therefore, a request to......
-
Sabatka v. Sabatka
...interest in determining the level of child support payments is the best interests of the children. See, also, Czaplewski v. Czaplewski, 240 Neb. 629, 483 N.W.2d 751 (1992); Stuczynski v. Stuczynski, 238 Neb. 368, 471 N.W.2d 122 In explaining the material change of circumstances standard, we......
-
Lodden v. Lodden, S-90-897
...available. See, Stover v. Stover, 240 Neb. 391, 482 N.W.2d 244 (1992); Lauenstein v. Lauenstein, supra. Although Czaplewski v. Czaplewski, 240 Neb. 629, 483 N.W.2d 751 (1992), might appear to contradict our holding in this case, Loddens' case is readily distinguishable. The decision of a tr......
-
Wulff v. Wulff
...that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the decree or a previous modification. Czaplewski v. Czaplewski, 240 Neb. 629, 483 N.W.2d 751 (1992); Empfield v. Empfield, 229 Neb. 83, 425 N.W.2d 334 It is true that in the absence of proof of new facts and circumstan......