Molina v. Salgado-Bustamante
837 N.W.2d 553
Neb. Ct. App.2013Background
- Agustin Salgado-Bustamante appeals after a remand from Molina v. Salgado-Bustamante regarding child support in a paternity action.
- Original district court order on remand increased retroactive and prospective child support; it also retroactively amended temporary support.
- There was a single attached child support worksheet (2005) and no complete set of worksheets for other years as required by guidelines.
- Nebraska appellate remand instructed to attach applicable worksheets showing retroactive and prospective support calculations and to address deviation from guidelines.
- On remand, the district court corrected a math error in retroactive arrearage but increased temporary and prospective support beyond remand scope.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed retroactive support calculation but reversed and remanded for new trial on temporary and prospective support amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did district court follow remand instructions on worksheets and retroactive support? | Salgado-Bustamante argues court exceeded remand scope by increasing temp/prospective support. | Molina contends district court properly attached worksheets and corrected retroactive calculation. | Retroactive correction upheld; temp/prospective increases reversed for remand scope. |
| Was there authority to modify temporary support on remand beyond correcting worksheets? | District court acted within remand to adjust support amounts. | Remand did not authorize increasing temporary support or deviating from guidelines. | District court abused discretion; temp support increased beyond remand. |
| May the district court grant new trial regarding changes to temporary and prospective support? | Agustin needed a new trial to challenge changes. | Mathematical correction didn't deprive Agustin of substantial rights; new trial unnecessary for retroactive portion. | New trial warranted for temporary and prospective support issues; not for retroactive calculation. |
| Did retroactive support calculation start date and credits align with evidence and worksheets? | Separation date and credits should reflect trial testimony and allow for evidence. | Trial testimony supported June 2005 separation; credits properly applied per record. | No abuse of discretion; retroactive amount affirmed with corrected total. |
| Did the district court properly apply credits for prior support provided by Agustin? | Credits disputed; court must credit all amounts proven by evidence. | Credits awarded were reasonable given witness testimony and evidence. | Credits affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301 (Neb. 2009) (requirement to attach worksheets to show calculations)
- Jones v. Belgum, 770 N.W.2d 667 (Neb. App. 2009) (remand directives and worksheets in child support cases)
- Mace v. Mace, 13 Neb. App. 896 (Neb. App. 2005) (remand scope and obedience to mandate)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 828 N.W.2d 760 (Neb. 2013) (importance of attaching worksheets to support orders)
- Anderson/Couvillon v. Nebraska Dept. of Soc. Servs., 572 N.W.2d 362 (Neb. 1998) (remedial mandate principles and judicial scope)
- Pohlmann v. Pohlmann, 824 N.W.2d 63 (Neb. App. 2012) (weight given to trial judge’s observed testimony)
- Weaver v. Compton, 605 N.W.2d 478 (Neb. App. 2000) (equitable nature of child support in paternity actions)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 613 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. App. 2000) (guidelines and overlapping considerations)
- Patton v. Patton, 818 N.W.2d 624 (Neb. App. 2012) (standard for abuse of discretion in family matters)