Arndt v. Arndt, A-16-250

Jodi filed a dissolution in 2007; a temporary stipulated child support order required James to pay $530/month beginning May 1, 2007; that action was dismissed for lack of prosecution in May 2010.
Jodi filed a second dissolution on May 13, 2010; a temporary order set support at $492/month (commencing May 1, 2010); a 2012 decree and incorporated settlement agreement required James to pay $2,500 by Aug 21, 2012 as "full settlement" of child support and medical expenses through June 21, 2012, and thereafter $405/month.
The decree stated the Child Support Payment Center should adjust records to reflect a zero balance as of June 30, 2012; James paid $2,500 shortly after entry of the decree.
In 2014 James moved to have the court declare the settlement extinguished arrearages from both the second action and the earlier dismissed first action after his tax refunds were intercepted for arrears arising from both cases.
The district court denied the motion, finding the decree’s language did not clearly extinguish arrearages from the earlier, dismissed first action; James’ motion to reconsider (with counsel affidavit) was denied, and he appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2012 decree/settlement extinguished all child-support arrearages, including those from the dismissed 2007 action	Arndt: the decree’s plain language ("full settlement" and directive to zero balance) shows intent to satisfy all arrears from both actions	Jodi/District Ct: decree refers only to arrears in the second action; no clear language extinguishing arrears from the dismissed first action	Court: no — decree unambiguously applies only to arrears from the second action; cannot infer intent to zero out the first action’s arrears
Whether the temporary support order and its accrued arrearages from the dismissed first action ceased to exist with dismissal, depriving the court of jurisdiction to address them	Arndt: dismissal ended the temporary order; court lacked jurisdiction over arrears from the dismissed case	Jodi/District Ct: accrued child-support payments vested in payee when due; dismissal did not forgive arrears and the obligations remained enforceable	Court: no — arrears vested when due and did not perish with dismissal; dismissal did not extinguish the accrued obligations

Rice v. Webb, 287 Neb. 712 (interpreting dissolution decree language is a question of law)
Anderson v. Anderson, 290 Neb. 530 (appellate review standard in child support cases)
Schroeder v. Schroeder, 223 Neb. 684 (temporary orders perish on dismissal where no continuing jurisdiction over parties)
Gress v. Gress, 257 Neb. 112 (child support payments vest in payee as they accrue)
State on behalf of Kayla T. v. Risinger, 273 Neb. 694 (support accrual and enforcement principles)
Dartmann v. Dartmann, 14 Neb. App. 864 (accrued support cannot be reduced after vesting)
Truman v. Truman, 256 Neb. 628 (equitable estoppel as exception to vesting rule)
Berg v. Berg, 238 Neb. 527 (court may discharge past-due support if proof of payment/satisfaction exists)
Lucero v. Lucero, 16 Neb. App. 706 (vesting of accrued support and limited relief doctrines)
State ex rel. L.L.B. v. Hill, 268 Neb. 355 (support accrual authority)