Keiser v. Keiser, 310 Neb. 345

Parties divorced in December 2018; decree awarded joint legal and physical custody of four children and ordered Matthew to pay $2,000/month child support (no worksheet attached).
Within 8 months, both parties sought modification; they later resolved custody so Krystal obtained sole physical custody of the two daughters and the parties continued joint custody of the two sons.
Trial addressed child support only; Matthew owns the parties’ landscaping/construction business and reported fluctuating wages ($86,480 in 2017; $71,195 in 2018; $19,182 in 2019) and business gross receipts that declined after 2017.
Matthew asked to base support on his reduced 2019 income and offered a methodology: calculate support for the two daughters under Worksheet 1 and for the two sons under the joint-custody worksheet (Worksheet 3), then add the results.
The district court declined to credit Matthew’s claimed income decline, retained the prior monthly income figure ($16,207.58), adopted Matthew’s calculation methodology but used the court’s income figures, and applied a $250 downward deviation to reach a $2,873/month obligation for four children.
Matthew appealed, challenging (1) the income determination and (2) the methodology used for the hybrid custody arrangement.

Issue	Matthew's Argument	Krystal's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by refusing to reduce Matthew’s income for support	Matthew: tax returns show sharply reduced income; base support on 2019 income	Krystal: income fluctuation not shown to be through no fault; prior agreed income should stand	No abuse: Matthew failed to show a material, non-fault decrease or reduced earning capacity; court properly relied on prior agreed monthly income and tax records
Whether court erred in applying child support guidelines to a hybrid custody arrangement	Matthew: court should apply an alternative formula on appeal (50% of Worksheet 1 for four children + 50% of Worksheet 3 for four children, then deviate)	Krystal: court’s chosen method is permissible; guidelines flexible for hybrid situations	No reversible error: court adopted Matthew’s trial methodology; invited-error rule bars his challenge; hybrid-methodology use and a permissible deviation affirmed

Lindblad v. Lindblad, 309 Neb. 776, 962 N.W.2d 545 (2021) (standard of review for modification of custody/support orders)
Incontro v. Jacobs, 277 Neb. 275, 761 N.W.2d 551 (2009) (burden to show material change; earning capacity is a factor)
Gress v. Gress, 271 Neb. 122, 710 N.W.2d 318 (2006) (self-employed income may be determined from tax returns)
Brooks v. Brooks, 261 Neb. 289, 622 N.W.2d 670 (2001) (guidelines provide flexibility; deviations permissible when application would be unjust)
Pearrow v. Pearrow, 27 Neb. App. 209, 928 N.W.2d 430 (2019) (upholding flexible guideline application in hybrid custody; no single required method)
Brandt v. Brandt, 227 Neb. 325, 417 N.W.2d 339 (1988) (recognition that exact, penny‑perfect application of guidelines is unrealistic)
Stewart v. Stewart, 9 Neb. App. 431, 613 N.W.2d 486 (2000) (trial courts must show worksheet math to allow appellate review)
Becher v. Becher, 299 Neb. 206, 908 N.W.2d 12 (2018) (invited-error principle applied to appellate review)
In re Estate of Marsh, 307 Neb. 893, 951 N.W.2d 486 (2020) (error without prejudice is not reversible)