Freeman v. Groskopf
286 Neb. 713
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Freeman filed April 2009 to modify paternity, custody, and support; court found Groskopf is father and awarded Freeman sole custody with a parenting plan and ordered $1,062.48 monthly child support.
- Groskopf filed a motion treated as a modification request; court found a material change and lowered support to $256/month based on earning capacity of $7.25/hour, 40 hours/week, without health care or childcare due to subsistence limits.
- In Feb. 2012 Freeman sought modification increases and contributed health care and childcare costs; trial occurred in Sept. addressing modification and contempt issues.
- Groskopf testified to completing automotive schooling, full-time study with intermittent work, and a current job at Butler Machinery earning $15.23/hour; trial court found increased earning capacity and bad faith in prior conduct.
- Court increased child support to $577/month based on earning capacity $15.23/hour and discussed health care/childcare expenses; court declined retroactive modification due to equities and bad faith.
- Appellate review affirmed, applying de novo standard for law and fact, upholding material change, earning-capacity approach, and discretionary retroactivity decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances | Freeman: change existed due to graduation and higher earning capacity | Groskopf: schooling and employment status remained unchanged; change was temporary/not contemplated | Yes, material change supported, warranting modification |
| Whether earning capacity of $15.23/hour was appropriate | Freeman: earning capacity reflect higher potential earnings | Groskopf: not appropriate since in school and no steady income | Appropriate; earnings capacity supported by record and used to calculate modification |
| Whether modification should be retroactive | Freeman: should apply from filing date given bad faith and equities | Groskopf: arrearage not payable; no retroactivity due to inability to pay | Not retroactive; court acted within its discretion |
| Whether Groskopf should contribute toward childcare expenses | Freeman: guidelines allow contribution when employment/education requires care | Lacked evidence of actual costs; record insufficient | No error; no evidence of actual costs; no order |
Key Cases Cited
- Rauch v. Rauch, 256 Neb. 257 (Neb. 1999) (guidelines variation 10% or more supports modification)
- Incontro v. Jacobs, 277 Neb. 275 (Neb. 2009) (use of earning capacity to compute child support)
- Peter v. Peter, 262 Neb. 1017 (Neb. 2002) (retroactivity considerations in modification cases)
- Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 Neb. 937 (Neb. 2005) (ability to pay retroactive support governs discretion)
- Gase v. Gase, 266 Neb. 975 (Neb. 2003) (deference to trial judge’s weighing of evidence on modifications)