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 she was $791.85 delinquent and filed an order to show cause for contempt.
- A child support referee held a February 2016 hearing: the State introduced payment history creating a rebuttable presumption of contempt; Lockwood testified about incarceration, mental illness, limited work history, efforts to obtain employment, and bartering work for reduced rent.
- The referee found the State failed to prove willful nonpayment by clear and convincing evidence and recommended dismissal of the order to show cause without prejudice.
- The State filed exceptions; at the district-court exception hearing it sought to introduce additional wage/pay-history evidence; the court treated the review as de novo on the record and declined to consider the new evidence as irrelevant.
- The district court affirmed the referee’s finding that Lockwood lacked present ability to pay and was not in contempt; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lockwood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by refusing additional evidence at the exception hearing | The court should have allowed the State to present additional pay/wage-history evidence at the exception hearing | The exception hearing is a de novo review of the referee’s record; additional evidence was irrelevant | Court held district court did not err; receiving new evidence at exception is discretionary and exclusion was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the district court erred in finding Lockwood not in contempt | State argued total facts (understated jail time, bartering for rent, other work) showed willful nonpayment | Lockwood argued incarceration, mental illness, and active job-seeking showed inability to pay and nonwillfulness | Court upheld finding that State failed to prove willfulness by clear and convincing evidence; Lockwood not in contempt |
| Burden of proof and shifting after payment-history exhibit | State maintained obligor must prove nonwillfulness after prima facie showing | Lockwood accepted that the presumption shifts burden to her to rebut with evidence of inability to pay | Court applied burden-shifting (prima facie case by State; burden to rebut shifted to Lockwood) and found rebuttal met |
| Standard governing evidence at exception hearings (scope of review) | State argued exception hearing can be a trial de novo allowing new evidence | Lockwood argued review is limited to referee record where no new evidence is permitted | Court held statute and rules give district court discretion: it may accept or reject report and may, in equity, receive new evidence but is not required to; exclusion here was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Klein v. Oakland/Red Oak Holdings, 294 Neb. 535 (appellate court reviews equity de novo and gives weight to trial judge’s opportunity to observe witnesses)
- Martin v. Martin, 294 Neb. 106 (three-part standard of review for civil contempt: law de novo, facts for clear error, contempt/sanction for abuse of discretion)
- City of Beatrice v. Goodenkauf, 219 Neb. 756 (equity actions vest trial court with broad equitable powers)
- State on behalf of Joseph F. v. Rial, 251 Neb. 1 (district court may allow evidentiary hearings following referee recommendations)
- Dike v. Dike, 245 Neb. 231 (district court conducted evidentiary hearing after referee recommendations)
- State on behalf of Dady v. Snelling, 10 Neb. App. 740 (exception to referee’s report followed by trial before the district court)