Mohammed v. Rojas
24 Neb. Ct. App. 810
Neb. Ct. App.2017Background
- Imad K. Mohammed and Claudia D. Rojas divorced in Arizona (2011); Arizona decree gave 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 later began receiving TANF/public assistance.
- California, through its child support agency, initiated UIFSA proceedings and requested Nebraska register the Arizona decree and seek modification to recover public assistance; Nebraska filed a complaint to modify in 2015.
- At hearing, Rojas submitted a notarized general testimony indicating $607/month in family assistance and $648 in food stamps (form dated March 2015); the State argued receipt of public assistance and California’s intervention constituted a material change.
- The child support referee found a material change and recommended setting support at $89/month based on Mohammed’s current earnings; the district court rejected the referee, finding the State failed to prove the change was not contemplated at the time of the Arizona decree or that assistance was not being received then, and dismissed the modification complaint.
- The State (intervenor on behalf of California) appealed; the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the State failed to prove a material change existed at the time of the modification trial or that it would reasonably continue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California’s provision of public assistance (TANF) and intervention constitutes a material change in circumstances to modify a registered child support order | State: California’s intervention and TANF for the children is a material change warranting modification | Mohammed: The State failed to prove the change was not contemplated at original decree or that assistance existed at time of decree; evidence did not show the change existed at time of trial or would continue | Court: Even if intervention/TANF could be a material change, State failed to prove change existed at trial or that it was not temporary; no modification warranted |
| Whether evidence admitted (Rojas’ general testimony affidavit) sufficed to establish duration and continuity of public assistance | State: Affidavit and UIFSA filings support that children received TANF and California remained an interested initiating tribunal | Mohammed: Affidavit does not prove assistance was ongoing at trial or lasting 6+ months; temporary nature undermines modification | Court: Affidavit admissible but did not establish that assistance existed at time of trial or would continue; burden not met |
| Whether 10% variation rule / rebuttable presumption of material change (Neb. Ct. R. § 4-217) applies to trigger modification | State: 10% variation and UIFSA procedures create rebuttable presumption favoring modification to minimum support | Mohammed: Even if presumption exists, State didn’t prove the qualifying duration/continuity elements | Court: Rule not applied because State failed to show changed circumstances existed at trial and would reasonably continue; analysis unnecessary |
| Whether district court abused discretion in rejecting referee’s recommendation of $89/month | State: Referee correctly calculated minimum support (10% of Mohammed’s net income) and intervention created material change | Mohammed: District court properly reviewed referee de novo and could reject recommendation based on evidentiary insufficiency | Court: No abuse of discretion; affirmance warranted though on different grounds (insufficient proof at trial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Pearson, 285 Neb. 686 (modification of child support reviewed de novo; trial court discretion)
- Kibler v. Kibler, 287 Neb. 1027 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Pearce v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 277 (appellate court won’t consider issues not decided by trial court)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 23 Neb. App. 219 (requirement that change be subsequent and not contemplated)
- Collins v. Collins, 19 Neb. App. 529 (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 grounds different from trial court if correct)
- Garza v. Garza, 288 Neb. 213 (purpose of minimum support rule)
- Hamilton v. Foster, 260 Neb. 887 (general purposes of UIFSA)