Scheibel v. Scheibel, 42499
| Decision Date | 23 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 42499,42499 |
| Citation | 204 Neb. 653,284 N.W.2d 572 |
| Parties | Nellie SCHEIBEL, Appellee, v. Ralph SCHEIBEL, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Divorce: Child Support. In the absence of evidence that a person ordered to pay child support was materially prejudiced, subsequent remarriage of the parties will not operate to bar enforcement of the order.
Jacobsen, Orr & Nelson, Kearney, for appellant.
Ross, Schroeder & Fritzler, Kearney, for appellee.
Heard before KRIVOSHA, C. J., BRODKEY, WHITE, and HASTINGS, JJ., and HOWARD, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to quash a writ of execution. We affirm.
Appellant, Ralph Scheibel, and appellee, Nellie Scheibel, were divorced on April 30, 1958. The decree provided that appellant, Ralph Scheibel, should pay to appellee the sum of $25 per month for the support of the minor child of the parties. On September 28, 1964, the parties were remarried and subsequently again divorced on January 15, 1973. The parties agree that the sum of $1,875 of the child support due between the date of the first divorce and subsequent remarriage was unpaid. The parties concede that no part of the amount is outlawed by section 42-371(2), R.R.S.1943.
The appellant assigns as error the court's failure to determine that the claim of the appellee was unenforceable and barred by the doctrine of laches. With the exception of copies of the two decrees of divorce, a matrimonial certificate, and a stipulation in which the dates of the divorce, remarriage, and subsequent divorce appear, no evidence was introduced. "Laches does not, like limitation, grow out of the mere passage of time; but it is founded upon the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced an inequity founded upon some change in the condition or relation of the parties." Miller v. Miller, 153 Neb. 890, 46 N.W.2d 618. The question is, then, whether the subsequent remarriage of parties operates as a matter of law, independent of any other circumstances, to automatically bar any action for child support not paid between the time of the first decree of divorce and the subsequent remarriage. We decline to so hold. Laches has been defined as a neglect to assert a right under such circumstances and for such a length of time as, when not induced by fraud or otherwise shown to be justified, will lead a court of equity to refuse its aid. Smith v. Smith, 168 Ohio 447, 156 N.E.2d 113.
Delay in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffis v. Griffis
...bar any action for child support not paid between the time of [a] first decree of divorce and [a] subsequent remarriage." 204 Neb. 653, 654, 284 N.W.2d 572, 573 (1979). The court answered this question in the negative. Furthermore, in response to the noncustodial parent's assertion that the......
-
Hildebrand v. Hildebrand
...duty to pay any child support that would have become due after the remarriage. (Emphasis in original.) Indeed, Scheibel v. Scheibel, 204 Neb. 653, 284 N.W.2d 572 (1979), implies that child support obligations terminate upon remarriage of the parties. The parties therein were divorced and th......
-
Schaff v. Schaff, 890016
...v. Davis, 66 Cal.Rptr. 14, 437 P.2d 502 (1968); Greene v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Polk County, 312 N.W.2d 915 (Ia.1981); Scheibel v. Scheibel, 204 Neb. 653, 284 N.W.2d 572 (1979). See Annot., Effect of remarriage of spouses to each other on child custody and support provisions of prior decree, 2......
-
Hanthorn v. Hanthorn
...a claim to be enforced--an inequity which arises out of some change in the condition or relation of the parties. Scheibel v. Scheibel, 204 Neb. 653, 284 N.W.2d 572 (1979). Appellant does not satisfy either of these tests. The fact that disability benefits serve as a substitute for the fathe......