Becher v. Becher
311 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2022Background
- Mark and Sonia Becher divorced in 2015; the decree required Mark to provide children’s health insurance and pay 90% of non‑insured medical expenses after the first $480 per year.
- Multiple post‑decree contempt proceedings followed; this appeal challenges a September 10, 2020 contempt order.
- Sonia sought contempt for (inter alia) unpaid children’s 2016 medical bills, unpaid real estate taxes from a May 11, 2016 order, and Mark’s refusal to pay for a 2018 wilderness therapy program for a daughter.
- The parties had stipulated that Mark paid $886.05 into court in March 2017 (which Sonia later conceded should be credited against 2016 medical expenses).
- The district court’s purge plan suspended a 60‑day jail sentence conditioned on Mark reimbursing Sonia (including interest) for taxes, therapy, orthodontia, and future medical expenses; the court also awarded Sonia attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sonia) | Defendant's Argument (Mark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 children’s medical expenses | Sonia: Mark failed to pay his share; contempt and inclusion in purge plan appropriate. | Mark: He paid $886.05 into court and should be credited; contempt for these expenses improper. | Court: Credit Mark for the stipulated $886.05; strike contempt finding and purge provision for 2016 expenses. |
| Future medical expenses as part of purge plan | Sonia: Court may order future compliance in purge plan to avoid serial contempt actions. | Mark: Conditioning jail on future, not‑yet‑incurred expenses violates civil‑contempt principles and denies consideration of ability to pay. | Court: Abuse of discretion to include future medical obligations in purge plan; struck those provisions. |
| Real estate taxes from May 11, 2016 order | Sonia: May 2016 order required Mark to pay his share; his nonpayment justified contempt and reimbursement. | Mark: May 2016 order was ambiguous/wrong and equity or setoff excuses nonpayment. | Court: May 2016 order sufficiently required payment; Mark willfully disobeyed; contempt and reimbursement affirmed (no collateral attack allowed; law‑of‑the‑case applies). |
| Wilderness therapy program costs (medical expense & judicial estoppel) | Sonia: Program included mental‑health treatment and insurance reimbursements support treating it as a medical expense he must share. | Mark: Sonia previously argued the program was not a "medical problem" (in his contempt case), so she is judicially estopped from now saying it is a medical expense. | Court: Declined to apply judicial estoppel (no clear bad‑faith showing; district court discretion); construed decree to include mental‑health treatment as "medical" and affirmed contempt and reimbursement order. |
| Interest and attorney fees | Sonia: Entitled to interest and reasonable fees for enforcing decree. | Mark: Court lacked statutory authority to award prejudgment interest in chapter 42 contempt proceedings; fees should be reduced because he prevailed in part. | Court: Interest award was within court’s equitable contempt/restoration powers (some interest treated as postjudgment); attorney‑fee award affirmed as not an abuse of discretion (fees reasonable and awarded after finding of contempt). |
Key Cases Cited
- Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 309 Neb. 376 (standard of review in civil contempt proceedings)
- Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust v. Ryan, 308 Neb. 851 (adopted findings prepared by counsel do not eliminate deference to trial court)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (trial judge’s adopted findings reversible only if clearly erroneous)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 308 Neb. 623 (civil contempt preserves/enforces private parties’ rights; elements and burden of proof)
- Sickler v. Sickler, 293 Neb. 521 (civil contempt is coercive/remedial; ability to purge required)
- Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76 (limits on collateral attacks on judgments)
- Davis v. Moats, 308 Neb. 757 (refusal to obey a void order is not contempt; distinction of void vs. erroneous judgments)
- Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 291 Neb. 278 (judicial estoppel doctrine and requirement of bad‑faith intent to mislead)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (judicial estoppel is equitable and fact‑specific; no exhaustive formula)