Stekr v. Beecham
291 Neb. 883
Neb.2015Background
- Peter and Kelly divorced in 2001; Peter was ordered to pay child support, which increased to $1,801.51/month in 2007.
- Peter’s income dropped after a 2010 layoff; he later earned $60,000/year plus a small bonus, and claimed limited savings.
- Peter owned multiple Colorado and Nebraska properties: a spec home in Denver held by his company (listed repeatedly, long unsold, mortgage ~$690,000), an unencumbered residence in Golden, CO, and an unencumbered Bennington, NE house (tax value ~$525,000; Peter estimated ~$400,000).
- A referee and the district court found Peter’s income decrease would justify a guideline reduction (to about $647.51/month) but concluded deviation was warranted because Peter had substantial real estate holdings and had used savings/other funds to make mortgage payments.
- The district court ordered Peter to continue paying $1,801/month; Peter appealed, arguing non-income-producing assets should not justify deviation from the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stekr) | Defendant's Argument (Beecham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-income-producing assets can justify deviating from child support guidelines | Non-income-producing real estate should not justify deviation; guidelines don't include such assets | Court may consider an obligor’s assets and resources when deviation is warranted | Court: Non-income-producing assets are relevant; deviation permitted when application of guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by deviating and keeping support at prior level | Deviation was an abuse because guidelines would substantially reduce support | Deviation justified by Peter’s substantial equity and use of savings to pay mortgages | Court: No abuse of discretion; district court reasonably found Peter had resources making strict application inappropriate |
| Whether equity in primary residence may be used to impute income or justify deviation | Primary residence equity should not be imputed or used to deviate absent extraordinary investment | Equity in other nonprimary real estate can be considered | Court: Do not ordinarily impute income from primary residence unless investment is extravagant; but Bennington property equity was relevant |
| Credibility of obligor’s claim of insolvency | Peter claimed savings depleted and inability to pay | Court/defense argued payments came from savings/other funds and were sustainable | Court deferred to trial court credibility findings and concluded protestations of imminent bankruptcy were not credible |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Pearson, 285 Neb. 686 (review standard and deference to trial court in child support modifications)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 290 Neb. 530 (courts may consider parties’ circumstances in support determinations)
- Binder v. Binder, 291 Neb. 255 (trial-court credibility findings entitled to weight on appeal)
- Incontro v. Jacobs, 277 Neb. 275 (children’s best interests are paramount in support decisions)
- Griffith v. Drew’s LLC, 290 Neb. 508 (appellate preservation rules regarding assignment and briefing)