Keiser v. Keiser, 310 Neb. 345

December 2018 divorce: parties awarded joint legal and physical custody of four children; Matthew ordered to pay $2,000/month child support (no worksheet attached).
Within 8 months the parties sought modification; they resolved custody so Krystal received sole physical custody of the two daughters and retained joint custody of the two sons.
Matthew owned the businesses received in the settlement; his reported wages dropped from $86,480 (2017) to $19,182 (2019) while business gross receipts also declined across those years.
Matthew proposed calculating support by (a) applying worksheet 1 to the two daughters and (b) applying the joint-custody worksheet to the two sons, then adding the results; he argued his support should be reduced based on 2019 income.
The district court declined to reduce Matthew’s income (kept the previously agreed monthly wage of $16,207.58), adopted Matthew’s proposed calculation method but used the court’s income numbers, and applied a $250 downward deviation for a $2,873 total obligation; Matthew appealed.

Issue	Matthew's Argument	Krystal's Argument	Held
Whether Matthew proved a material income decrease warranting lower child support	His 2019 tax return shows much lower income (propose basing support on $43,403/year)	Tax returns and testimony do not credibly show an unexplained, nonself-inflicted reduction or change in earning capacity; court should use prior agreed income	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; Matthew failed to show material change or loss of earning capacity; tax returns may be used to determine self-employed income
Whether the court erred in the methodology for a hybrid custody situation	On appeal, proposes using 50% of worksheet 1 for four children plus 50% of worksheet 3 for four children, minus $250 deviation (yields lower obligation)	District court adopted Matthew’s trial exhibit methodology (separate calculations for daughters and sons, then add) and applied a downward deviation	Affirmed: the court followed Matthew’s proposed method (invited error bars challenge); hybrid situations permit flexible application or deviation from guidelines; deviation in Matthew’s favor was harmless

Lindblad v. Lindblad, 309 Neb. 776, 962 N.W.2d 545 (standard of review for modification of custody/support)
Incontro v. Jacobs, 277 Neb. 275, 761 N.W.2d 551 (burden to prove material change and consideration of earning capacity)
Gress v. Gress, 271 Neb. 122, 710 N.W.2d 318 (income of self-employed person may be determined from tax returns)
Brooks v. Brooks, 261 Neb. 289, 622 N.W.2d 670 (guidelines allow flexibility and deviations when application would be unjust)
Brandt v. Brandt, 227 Neb. 325, 417 N.W.2d 339 (early statement that guideline calculations need not be "to the penny")
Pearrow v. Pearrow, 27 Neb. App. 209, 928 N.W.2d 430 (upholding flexible/averaging approaches in hybrid custody situations)