modification hearing in Nebraska

2022Cite as 311 Neb. 262 At the modification hearing below, the parties first stipu- lated that Spratt had reached MMI in his lumbar back.

2022Cite as 311 Neb. 262 At the modification hearing below, the parties first stipu- lated that Spratt had reached MMI in his lumbar back.

2022However, as in State on behalf of Jakai C. v. -7- Tiffany M., 292 Neb. 68 , 871 N.W.2d 230 (2015), based upon our review of the evidence adduced at the modification hearing, we do not see that this disrespect was communicated to the child or affected him up to the point of the modification hearing.

2015Cite as 292 Neb. 68 denied a change of custody and increased Damian’s child sup- port obligation.

2000Id., citing Board v. Board, 690 S.W.2d 380 (Ky. 1985) (holding that crediting of Social Security payments is not modification of decree).

1999Id.

1985Kuhn v. Kuhn, 204 Neb. 363 , 282 N.W.2d 43 (1979); Dunne v. Dunne, supra; Haake v. Haake, supra. Upon reviewing the facts we find that there has not been a *489 sufficient change of circumstances to warrant a change of custody.

1985Kuhn v. Kuhn, 204 Neb. 363 , 282 N.W.2d 43 (1979); Dunne v. Dunne, supra; Haake v. Haake, supra. Upon reviewing the facts we find that there has not been a *489 sufficient change of circumstances to warrant a change of custody.

1932Rep. 189 , it is said: “The sale of the wheat was its actual conversion by the defendant, and its value at that time, in the form in which he sold it, was the measure of damages, if the plaintiff was content therewith; though we think he was entitled to the highest price of the property at any time between the taking and the sale.” This court, as stated in the opinion by Letton, J., in Clay v. Palmer, 104 Neb. 476 , has adopted a slight modification of the rule in Wooden-Ware Co. v. United States, 106 U. S. 432 , and follows that of Carpenter v. Lingenfelter, 42 Neb. 728 , to the effect that t

1920In Carpenter v. Lingenfelter, 42 Neb. 728, 737 , it is pointed out that there is a conflict of authority upon the matter: “There is one line of cases which holds that, where the value of property has been increased by another, the owner may recover the value of the property in its improved and *489 more valuable form.

2024If incorrect, or if it fails to speak the truth, the correction must be made in the district court and not here.” 14 Stated another way, the transcript 12 Id. at 743, 539 N.W.2d at 43 . 13 Ginger Cove Common Area Co. v. Wiekhorst, 296 Neb. 416 , 893 N.W.2d 467 (2017). 14 Lippincott v. Lippincott, 144 Neb. 486, 488 , 13 N.W.2d 721, 723 (1944) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024If incorrect, or if it fails to speak the truth, the correction must be made in the district court and not here.” 14 Stated another way, the transcript 12 Id. at 743, 539 N.W.2d at 43 . 13 Ginger Cove Common Area Co. v. Wiekhorst, 296 Neb. 416 , 893 N.W.2d 467 (2017). 14 Lippincott v. Lippincott, 144 Neb. 486, 488 , 13 N.W.2d 721, 723 (1944) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024If incorrect, or if it fails to speak the truth, the correction must be made in the district court and not here.” 14 Stated another way, the transcript 12 Id. at 743, 539 N.W.2d at 43 . 13 Ginger Cove Common Area Co. v. Wiekhorst, 296 Neb. 416 , 893 N.W.2d 467 (2017). 14 Lippincott v. Lippincott, 144 Neb. 486, 488 , 13 N.W.2d 721, 723 (1944) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024SULZLE Cite as 318 Neb. 194 of the orders or judgment entered is the sole, conclusive, and unimpeachable evidence of the proceedings in the district court, and the correctness of the record may not be assailed collaterally in an appellate court. 15 Nothing in the appellate record contradicts the district court’s statement, in the record, that Joshua was represented by his attorney at the modification hearing.

2024SULZLE Cite as 318 Neb. 194 the modification hearing and was “thriving both socially and academically in Nebraska, although he may have enjoyed similar benefits [with his mother].” 28 The implication with respect to the deterioration of Joshua’s relationship with Aurora and Olivia and his disparagement of Emily to them was that these occurred after the 2020 decree was issued.

2023App. 953 , 536 N.W.2d 77 (1995). [14] This court has held: In determining whether to modify an award with respect to childcare expenses, this court has compared the need for work-related childcare at the time of the original decree with the need for such childcare at the time of the modification hearing.

2021The evidence presented at the modification hearing showed that the parties followed the joint custody plan as outlined by the original decree, granting Stacy visitation on the first, third, and fifth weekends of each month, along with every other - 785 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 29 Nebraska Appellate Reports LANGLEY v. LANGLEY Cite as 29 Neb.

2020Jones v. Jones, 305 Neb. 615 , 941 N.W.2d 501 (2020).

2020Jones v. Jones, 305 Neb. 615 , 941 N.W.2d 501 (2020).

2020A modification hearing was held in April 2019, and the evi- dence established that Glen is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. - 720 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 28 Nebraska Appellate Reports WEAVER v. WEAVER Cite as 28 Neb.

2020Instead, Carlson held that when modifications to property settlement agreements do not pertain to the custody or support of minor children, they are governed either by the modification standard set out in the 50 Id. at 542, 909 N.W.2d at 362 . 51 See, e.g., Tilson, supra note 4 . 52 Carlson, supra note 1 .

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020See, Foster v. Foster, 266 Neb. 32 , 662 N.W.2d 191 (2003); Zetterman v. Zetterman, 245 Neb. 255 , 512 N.W.2d 622 (1994). - 967 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports WINDHAM v. KROLL Cite as 307 Neb. 947 property settlement agreement or, if the agreement contains no such standard, by the general standard under Nebraska law for modifying provisions in a property settlement agreement. 53 We adhere to the rule announced in Carlson as it regards post-majority support, but find it has no application here.

2020See, Foster v. Foster, 266 Neb. 32 , 662 N.W.2d 191 (2003); Zetterman v. Zetterman, 245 Neb. 255 , 512 N.W.2d 622 (1994). - 967 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports WINDHAM v. KROLL Cite as 307 Neb. 947 property settlement agreement or, if the agreement contains no such standard, by the general standard under Nebraska law for modifying provisions in a property settlement agreement. 53 We adhere to the rule announced in Carlson as it regards post-majority support, but find it has no application here.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2020We reasoned that under § 42-366(2), agreements regarding the custody and support of minor children are not binding on the dissolution court, 33 and we noted that despite agreements to the contrary, “child support orders are always subject to review and modification.” 34 30 Id. at 568-69, 611 N.W.2d at 90 , citing Hoshor v. Hoshor, 254 Neb. 743 , 580 N.W.2d 516 (1998); Pascale v. Pascale, 229 Neb. 49 , 424 N.W.2d 890 (1988); Colson v. Colson, 215 Neb. 452 , 339 N.W.2d 280 (1983); and Klabunde v. Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681 , 234 N.W.2d 837 (1975). 31 See § 42-366. 32 Reinsch, supra note 2 , 259 Neb.

2019Maranville v. Dworak , 17 Neb.

2019Payton was currently - 971 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 26 Nebraska A ppellate R eports WELCH v. PEERY Cite as 26 Neb.

2019Given the evidence presented at the modification hearing, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in reaching its conclusion. - 985 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 26 Nebraska A ppellate R eports WELCH v. PEERY Cite as 26 Neb.

2018Cite as 299 Neb. 329 In the instant case, Rogelio did not submit any tax returns or other documentary evidence of his wages at the time of the modification hearing before the district court.

2017After recounting the evi- dence from the modification hearing, the court said that most of Sara’s energy is “focused on her anger over the divorce and alienating the children” and that “[s]he has been disrup- tive, controlling and rude during [parenting time] exchanges.” “Based on the totality of the evidence,” the court decided to “decrease some of her [parenting time] because she is not - 177 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 25 Nebraska A ppellate R eports SCHRINER v. SCHRINER Cite as 25 Neb.