Schmaderer v. Schmaderer
A-17-036
| Neb. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Todd and Shawn Schmaderer divorced in 2008 and the decree was modified in 2012; they share two minor children (born 2000 and 2003).
- 2012 modification increased Todd’s child support and allowed a $200 downward deviation for Todd’s travel to exercise parenting time; parenting time exchanges were centered on York, NE, with additional provisions for transportation.
- Todd was later promoted to Chief of Police and earned about $170,000 annually by 2015–16; his pay included a mandatory pension deduction (16.35%) and voluntary deferred compensation contributions.
- Shawn filed to modify child support and parenting time in June 2015, alleging Todd’s income increased and his employment change affected parenting time; Todd counterclaimed for additional parenting time credits and transportation rules.
- After hearings, the district court (Nov. 2016, amended Dec. 2016) recalculated income, kept a $200 travel deviation, modified parenting time, set new support to begin Jan. 1, 2017, but did not order retroactive support to the filing date.
- On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed most rulings but held the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering retroactive support to July 1, 2015; it awarded $3,654 in retroactive support payable within 60 days of mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shawn) | Defendant's Argument (Todd) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calculation of Todd’s income for child support | Court should exclude mandatory pension and treat deferred compensation as nontaxable (reducing total monthly income) | Use Todd’s gross salary ($170,000) as total monthly income; mandatory pension is a deduction allowed by guidelines | Court did not abuse discretion; using gross salary and allowed deductions complied with guidelines |
| Tax and other deductions on worksheet | Court overstated taxes by not accounting for pension/deferred deductions, producing unjust support calculation | Worksheet used standard guideline deductions; trial court’s tax calculations are within discretion | No abuse of discretion in tax deduction calculations under guidelines |
| Travel deviation for parenting-time expenses ($200) | Deviation speculative and unsupported by documentation | Deviation previously allowed and Todd participates actively; some travel records and schedule evidence existed | Trial court did not abuse discretion in continuing the $200 deviation |
| Retroactive child support | Requested retroactivity to first day of month after filing (July 1, 2015) | No request for retroactivity at trial; delays not solely Todd’s fault | Trial court abused discretion by denying retroactivity; appellate court ordered retroactive support of $3,654 to July 1, 2015 |
| Modification of parenting time | No material change in circumstances to justify changes | Children’s active schedules and reduced cooperation from Shawn created material change; evidence favored Todd | Modification was supported by record and was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. Hopkins, 294 Neb. 417 (standard of review for modification of dissolution decree)
- Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901 (income for child support may differ from taxable income)
- Workman v. Workman, 262 Neb. 373 (trial court may deviate from guidelines when deductions make support unjust)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 285 Neb. 686 (only reasonable transportation expenses may reduce support)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 838 (factors and presumption for retroactive modification of child support)
- McDonald v. McDonald, 21 Neb. App. 535 (noncustodial parent should not gratuitously benefit from delay when able to pay retroactive support)
- Mock v. Neumeister, 296 Neb. 376 (appellate consideration of trial court fact-findings when witnesses conflict)