Keiser v. Keiser, 310 Neb. 345

Parties divorced in December 2018; decree awarded joint legal/physical custody of four children and ordered Matthew to pay $2,000/month in child support (no worksheet attached).
Property settlement gave Matthew the parties’ landscaping and construction business; reported wages and business receipts declined from 2017 to 2019.
Within 8 months both parties sought modification; they resolved custody so Krystal received sole physical custody of two daughters and the parties retained joint custody of two sons.
At trial Matthew sought reduced child support based on lower 2019 income (tax returns showed personal income fell to ~$43,403), and submitted a methodology that calculated support separately for the daughters (worksheet 1) and sons (joint-custody worksheet) and then added the results.
The district court rejected Matthew’s income reduction, kept the previously used monthly income ($16,207.58), adopted Matthew’s proposed methodology for the hybrid custody situation, applied a $250 downward deviation, and set total support at $2,873/month; Matthew appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Matthew)	Defendant's Argument (Krystal)	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by declining to reduce Matthew’s income for support	Matthew: Business and tax returns show significant income decrease by 2019; support should be based on 2019 income	Krystal: Decline not adequately explained; earning capacity unchanged; prior agreed income is proper baseline	Court: No abuse of discretion; Matthew failed to prove a material, non-self-caused decline or loss of earning capacity; court properly used prior income figure
Whether methodology for hybrid custody was erroneous	Matthew (below): Use separate calculations for daughters (sole custody) and sons (joint custody) and add; on appeal proposes alternate 50%/50% split method	Krystal: Court may adopt a workable, guideline-consistent methodology; deviation permissible	Court: Adopted Matthew’s below-proposed methodology (invited error); methodology acceptable when explained; invited-error rule bars his challenge; affirmed

Lindblad v. Lindblad, 309 Neb. 776 (2021) (standard: child custody/support modifications committed to trial court discretion; reviewed de novo on the record)
Incontro v. Jacobs, 277 Neb. 275 (2009) (burden to prove material change of circumstances for modification)
Gress v. Gress, 271 Neb. 122 (2006) (income of self-employed person generally determined from tax returns)
Pearrow v. Pearrow, 27 Neb. App. 209 (2019) (upholding flexible application of guidelines and averaging in a hybrid custody situation)
Brandt v. Brandt, 227 Neb. 325 (1988) (recognizing limits of strict application of guidelines; accuracy to the penny not required)
Brooks v. Brooks, 261 Neb. 289 (2001) (deviation from guidelines permissible when application would be unjust or inappropriate)
Stewart v. Stewart, 9 Neb. App. 431 (2000) (trial courts must show calculations on worksheets to allow appellate review)
Becher v. Becher, 299 Neb. 206 (2018) (invited-error doctrine applies even to legal questions)
In re Estate of Marsh, 307 Neb. 893 (2020) (error without prejudice is not reversible)