Mohammed v. Rojas
898 N.W.2d 396
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mohammed and Rojas divorced in Arizona (2011); Arizona decree awarded Rojas sole custody and set child support at $0 by downward deviation based on the parties’ agreement and Mohammed’s limited income.
- Rojas and the children moved to California in December 2012 and began receiving TANF/public assistance; California sought interstate assistance to modify the Arizona order and recover TANF.
- California (through Nebraska as the responding state) registered the Arizona decree in Nebraska and filed a complaint to modify child support in January 2015 under UIFSA.
- At the referee hearings (May–June 2015), Rojas’ affidavit indicated she received $607 in family assistance and $648 in food stamps as of March 2015; no testimony established when assistance began or whether it continued through the trial date.
- The referee found a material change (California’s involvement/TANF) and recommended $89/month based on Mohammed’s current earnings; the district court rejected modification, finding the State failed to prove the change was not contemplated at the time of the Arizona decree.
- Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed: it ruled the State failed to prove the changed circumstances existed at the time of the modification trial and were reasonably expected to continue, so no modification was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/California) | Defendant's Argument (Mohammed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California’s provision of public assistance to the children constitutes a material change in circumstances for modifying a registered foreign child support order | Receipt of TANF and California’s intervention is a material change warranting modification and reimbursement | The original Arizona agreement contemplated parties’ circumstances; State failed to prove change existed at trial or was not contemplated | Court: Even if assistance could be a material change, State failed to prove it existed at the time of the modification trial or would reasonably continue, so no modification |
| Whether a 10% variation rebuttable presumption under Neb. Ct. R. § 4-217 applies to trigger modification | The rule creates a rebuttable presumption of material change where current support varies >10% and the change has lasted 3 months and likely will last 6 more | Mohammed emphasized his low income and existing $0 order; challenged sufficiency of evidence for duration/continuation | Court: Did not apply § 4-217 because State failed to prove the changed circumstances existed at trial and would continue; therefore presumption analysis unnecessary |
| Whether the referee’s recommendation (set support at $89) should be adopted | Recommended modification to minimal support ($89) based on Mohammed’s net income and § 4-209 minimum-support guideline | Mohammed argued minimal income and family obligations justify no change from $0 | Court: District court may review de novo and reject referee; appellate court affirmed district court because State failed burden of proof |
| Burden of proof for modification of child support | State must prove a material change that occurred after the original decree and was not contemplated, and that it exists at trial and is not temporary | Mohammed argued State did not meet that burden (lack of evidence on timing/duration of assistance) | Held: Party seeking modification bears burden; State failed to satisfy it, so modification denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Pearson, 285 Neb. 686 (review of modification is de novo but trial court decision affirmed absent abuse of discretion)
- Kibler v. Kibler, 287 Neb. 1027 (abuse of discretion defined)
- Pearce v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 277 (appellate courts won’t consider issues not decided by trial court)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 23 Neb. App. 219 (modification requires material change occurring after decree and not contemplated)
- Collins v. Collins, 19 Neb. App. 529 (material change must exist at time of modification trial and not be temporary)
- Semler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 268 Neb. 857 (appellate court may affirm on different ground if result correct)
- Garza v. Garza, 288 Neb. 213 (purpose of minimum-support guideline to ensure some support and parental obligation)
- Hamilton v. Foster, 260 Neb. 887 (purpose and interstate objectives of UIFSA)