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 alleged $791.85 arrears and filed an order to show cause for contempt.
- A child support referee heard evidence in Feb. 2016: the State introduced a payment history showing nonpayment since May 2015; the referee treated that as creating a rebuttable presumption of willful contempt and allowed Lockwood to present evidence.
- Lockwood testified she had intermittent incarceration, serious mental-health issues, limited work history and had been actively seeking employment and participating in rehabilitation programs; she also performed work in exchange for reduced rent.
- The referee concluded the State failed to prove willful nonpayment by clear and convincing evidence and recommended dismissal of the order to show cause.
- The State filed exceptions and at the district-court exception hearing sought to introduce additional wage/pay-history evidence; the district court declined to consider the new evidence as irrelevant and affirmed the referee, finding Lockwood lacked present ability to pay and was not in contempt.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the district court acted within its discretion in refusing cumulative additional evidence and its factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lockwood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing to admit additional evidence at exception hearing | Court should allow pay/wage history at exception because hearing is a de novo contempt proceeding and evidence is relevant to willfulness | Exception hearing reviews referee record; additional evidence was irrelevant on de novo review | Court: District court has discretion to admit new evidence at exception hearings; here exclusion was not erroneous because offered evidence was cumulative and weaker than admissions |
| Standard and scope of review at exception hearing to referee report | (implicit) State treated hearing as trial de novo permitting additional evidence | Lockwood: exception hearing is record review of referee; new evidence unnecessary | Court: Referee report nonbinding; when exception filed district court has equitable discretion to receive new evidence but may decline; review is de novo on the record unless court allows additional evidence |
| Whether State met burden to show Lockwood willfully and contumaciously failed to pay child support | State: payment history creates presumption of contempt and Lockwood’s barter/work and inconsistent incarceration testimony support contempt finding | Lockwood: showed inability to pay due to incarceration, mental illness, limited employment; rebutted presumption | Court: State established prima facie case but Lockwood rebutted by clear and convincing evidence; district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous; no contempt |
| Burden allocation and sufficiency of evidence for contempt | Presumption from payment record shifts burden to obligor to prove non-willfulness; State argues obligor failed to do so | Lockwood presented evidence of incarceration, disability, job searches, and inability to pay | Court: Burden shifted properly; Lockwood met it; court properly found no willful nonpayment |
Key Cases Cited
- Klein v. Oakland/Red Oak Holdings, 294 Neb. 535 (discusses de novo review in equity appeals)
- Martin v. Martin, 294 Neb. 106 (sets three-part standard of review in civil contempt proceedings)
- City of Beatrice v. Goodenkauf, 219 Neb. 756 (equity actions vest trial court with broad powers)
- State on behalf of Joseph F. v. Rial, 251 Neb. 1 (recognizes district court may hold evidentiary hearing after referee report)
- Dike v. Dike, 245 Neb. 231 (district court held evidentiary hearing following referee recommendations)
- State on behalf of Dady v. Snelling, 10 Neb. App. 740 (exception to referee report led to trial before district court)