Drabbels v. Drabbels
25 Neb. Ct. App. 102
Neb. Ct. App.2017Background
- Darren and Michelle Drabbels divorced after separation in 2014; they share one child born in 2013. The district court awarded Michelle physical custody and ordered Darren to pay child support.
- At trial, Darren earned $33.35/hour as a lineman; his employer paid $1,935.52/month for health insurance covering him and the child and made retirement contributions on his behalf; Darren paid nothing out-of-pocket for these benefits.
- The district court calculated Darren’s gross monthly income as $7,716 by adding his hourly earnings (~$5,780/month) to the employer-paid health insurance, then allowed a $375 retirement deduction, resulting in an $880/month child support order.
- Darren moved to alter or amend, arguing the court should not have imputed employer-paid insurance as income without giving corresponding deductions/credits; Michelle cross-appealed on inclusion/exclusion of fringe benefits and retirement deductions and raised allocation of childcare costs.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo: it held employer-paid health insurance should not have been included in Darren’s income calculation, and the $375 retirement deduction was improper because Darren made no out-of-pocket retirement contributions. The court recalculated support at $782/month and remanded for allocation of childcare expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Darren) | Defendant's Argument (Michelle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer-paid health insurance may be added to Darren’s monthly income without allowing deductions/credits | Court erred by including employer-paid premiums as income without giving deduction/credit; premiums not available to Darren | Court included premiums as in-kind income when computing gross monthly income | Court held employer-paid premiums should not be included in Darren’s income; compute income using hourly wages only |
| Whether Darren should receive deduction/credit for health insurance premiums | If premiums were included as income, he should receive deduction for his own premium and credit for child premium | Opposed because premiums were employer-paid; court had included premiums differently | No deduction/credit required once premiums excluded from income calculation |
| Whether retirement deduction was proper | Court allowed $375 deduction for retirement contributions | Michelle argued Darren made no out-of-pocket contributions; employer made retirement payments | Court held deduction improper because Darren did not make actual voluntary contributions |
| Whether childcare expenses must be allocated between parents | Darren did not contest existing split; argued calculations otherwise | Michelle argued court erred by not allocating childcare costs and wanted continuation of splitting | Court remanded for district court to allocate childcare expenses under the guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Patton, 20 Neb. App. 51, 818 N.W.2d 624 (Neb. Ct. App.) (standard of review and abuse of discretion in dissolution/child support matters)
- Millatmal v. Millatmal, 272 Neb. 452, 723 N.W.2d 79 (Neb. 2006) (trial judge’s credibility determinations may be given weight on appeal)
- Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901, 678 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. 2004) (flexible, equitable approach to computing income for child support)
- Gress v. Gress, 271 Neb. 122, 710 N.W.2d 318 (Neb. 2006) (income findings should not rest on entirely speculative items)
- Workman v. Workman, 262 Neb. 373, 632 N.W.2d 286 (Neb. 2001) (guidance on inclusion of in-kind benefits and speculative income)