State on behalf of Lockwood v. Laue
24 Neb. Ct. App. 909
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In July 2014 the district court ordered Dawn Lockwood to pay $50/month child support; by Dec. 2015 the State sought a show-cause order for arrears (~$791.85).
- A child support referee heard evidence in Feb. 2016: the State introduced the payment history (showing nonpayment since May 2015) and argued a rebuttable presumption of willful contempt arose; Lockwood testified about incarceration, mental-health disabilities, job searches, barter work for reduced rent, and limited earning capacity.
- The referee found the State had not met its burden by clear and convincing evidence and recommended dismissal of the show-cause order without prejudice.
- The State filed exceptions; at the district-court exception hearing it attempted to introduce additional wage/pay-history evidence, which Lockwood opposed; the court conditionally received the exhibits but later declined to consider them as ‘‘irrelevant’’ on a de novo review of the referee’s record.
- The district court adopted the referee’s findings, concluded Lockwood overcame the presumption of willful nonpayment, and dismissed the contempt proceedings; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by refusing to admit additional evidence at the exception hearing | State: exception hearing is a de novo trial and court should allow wage/pay-history to prove willfulness | Lockwood: exception hearing is review of referee record; additional evidence not relevant | Court: district court has discretion to admit or exclude new evidence at exception hearings; exclusion here was not an abuse of discretion (additional evidence was cumulative) |
| Whether Lockwood was in civil contempt for failing to pay child support | State: record (payment history, barter work, alleged misstatements about jail time) shows ability to pay and willful nonpayment | Lockwood: incarceration, mental-health impairments, limited work history, and active job-seeking show inability to pay and no willful contempt | Court: factual findings that Lockwood lacked present ability to pay were not clearly erroneous; State failed to meet clear-and-convincing burden, so no contempt finding |
| Standard of review applicable to exception/contempt issues | State: urges de novo review and that additional facts should be considered | Lockwood: emphasizes de novo review on the record of referee proceedings | Court: outlines equity and contempt standards — de novo review for law, clear-error for facts, abuse-of-discretion for contempt/sanction; when exceptions are filed, district court in equity may receive new evidence but has discretion to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Klein v. Oakland/Red Oak Holdings, 294 Neb. 535, 883 N.W.2d 699 (Neb. 2016) (appellate de novo review in equity and deference where trial judge observed witnesses)
- Martin v. Martin, 294 Neb. 106, 881 N.W.2d 174 (Neb. 2016) (three-part standard of review in civil contempt proceedings)
- City of Beatrice v. Goodenkauf, 219 Neb. 756, 366 N.W.2d 411 (Neb. 1985) (equity actions vest broad powers in trial court)
- State on behalf of Joseph F. v. Rial, 251 Neb. 1, 554 N.W.2d 769 (Neb. 1996) (district court/referee practice acknowledging trials or testimony before district court)
- Dike v. Dike, 245 Neb. 231, 512 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 1994) (district court conducting evidentiary hearing after referee recommendation)
- State on behalf of Dady v. Snelling, 10 Neb. App. 740, 637 N.W.2d 906 (Neb. App. 2001) (exception to referee report followed by trial before district court)