- 799 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

Eric C. Kotas, appellee, v. Jennifer 

M. Barnett, formerly known as 

Jennifer M. Kotas, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 25, 2023. No. A-22-399.

1. Modification of Decree: Child Support: Appeal and Error.

Modification of child support payments is entrusted to the trial court’s 

discretion, and although, on appeal, the issue is reviewed de novo on the 

record, an appellate court will affirm the trial court’s decision absent an 

abuse of discretion.

2. Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a review de novo on the record, an 

appellate court reappraises the evidence as presented by the record and 

reaches its own independent conclusions on the matters at issue. When 

evidence is in conflict, the appellate court considers and may give 

weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses 

and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.

3. Pleadings: Judgments. A determination as to whether a motion, however titled, should be deemed a motion to alter or amend a judgment 

depends upon the contents of the motion, not its title.

4. Pleadings: Judgments: Time. In order to qualify for treatment as a 

motion to alter or amend a judgment, a motion must be filed no later 

than 10 days after the entry of judgment and must seek substantive 

alteration of the judgment.

5. Modification of Decree: Child Support: Proof. A party seeking to 

modify a child support order must show a material change in circumstances which (1) occurred subsequent to the entry of the original decree 

or previous modification and (2) was not contemplated when the decree 

was entered.

6. Modification of Decree: Child Support. Among the factors to be considered in determining whether a material change of circumstances has 

occurred are changes in the financial position of the parent obligated 

to pay support, the needs of the children for whom support is paid, 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

05/02/2023 08:05 AM CDT
- 800 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

good or bad faith motive of the obligated parent in sustaining a reduction in income, and whether the change is temporary or permanent.

7. Modification of Decree: Child Support: Proof. The party seeking the 

modification has the burden to produce sufficient proof that a material 

change of circumstances has occurred that warrants a modification and 

that the best interests of the child are served thereby.

8. ____: ____: ____. Proof of a change of circumstances is not an optional 

element to a modification proceeding. Rather, proof of a material change 

of circumstances is the threshold inquiry in a proceeding on a complaint 

to modify, because issues determined in the prior custody order are 

deemed preclusive in the absence of new facts and circumstances.

9. Modification of Decree: Child Support. It is invariably concluded that 

a reduction in child support is not warranted when an obligor parent’s 

financial position diminishes due to his or her own voluntary wastage or 

dissipation of his or her talents and assets and a reduction in child support would seriously impair the needs of the children.

10. ____: ____. An obligor parent’s reduction in income does not warrant 

modification of child support where the reduction in income was attributable to the parent’s personal wishes and not the result of unfavorable 

or adverse conditions in the economy, the parent’s health, or other circumstances affecting earning capacity.

Appeal from the District Court for Saline County: Ricky A. 

Schreiner, Judge. Reversed.

Linsey A. Camplin, of McHenry, Haszard, Roth, Hupp, 

Burkholder, Blomenberg & Camplin, P.C., for appellant.

David V. Chipman, of Monzόn, Guerra & Chipman, for 

appellee.

Pirtle, Chief Judge, and Riedmann and Arterburn, 

Judges.

Pirtle, Chief Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Jennifer M. Barnett (Jennifer), formerly known as Jennifer 

M. Kotas, appeals from the order of the district court for Saline 

County, which terminated the child support obligation of Eric 

C. Kotas (Eric) and ordered the parties to equally divide all 
- 801 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

reasonable and necessary direct child-related expenditures. For 

the reasons that follow, we reverse.

BACKGROUND

Jennifer and Eric are the parents of one minor child, born in 

2007. The parties married in 2007 and divorced in 2010, and 

they have shared joint legal and physical custody of the minor 

child since the divorce. The initial 2010 decree ordered Eric 

to pay Jennifer a monthly child support obligation of $42.64. 

In November 2012, the district court entered an order of modification increasing Eric’s monthly child support obligation to 

$75. The 2012 modification also modified the parties’ parenting plan so that parenting time alternates each week and runs 

from Sunday to Sunday. In September 2016, in a separate 

case, Eric was ordered to pay $250 per month in child support for two children from a different marriage. In December 

2016, the district court entered an order of modification 

increasing Eric’s monthly child support obligation in this case 

to $194.

On July 7, 2020, Jennifer filed a complaint for modification, requesting sole physical and legal custody of the minor 

child, a recalculation of child support, and reallocation of 

child-related expenses. With respect to child support, Jennifer 

alleged only that she was “requesting a change in custody that 

would increase [Eric’s] obligation by more than ten percent in 

accordance with the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines.” On 

July 24, Eric filed an answer in which he affirmatively alleged 

that “there have been no significant and material changes in 

the circumstances of the parties which warrant a modification 

of the Decree in this matter.” In the alternative, “[i]f the Court 

finds that there has been a significant and material change,” 

Eric counterclaimed for sole legal and physical custody and for 

an order “setting the financial obligations of the parties . . . as 

determined by the custodial placement set.”

Trial on the complaint and counterclaim was held on January 

10, 2022. Prior to trial, the parties came to an agreement 
- 802 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

on all custody and parenting time matters. That agreement 

was memorialized in a joint stipulation which narrowly modified the decree in that Eric was granted final decisionmaking authority over education and Jennifer was granted final 

decisionmaking authority over medical care. Additionally, the 

parties agreed to split the cost of car insurance for the minor 

child when he started driving, as the child was 14 years old 

at the time and nearing driving age. The parties further stipulated to provide the minor child with all prescribed medication 

in a timely manner and to change the location and time of 

parenting time transitions. Importantly, the joint stipulation 

explicitly reaffirmed the physical custody and parenting time 

arrangement as modified in the 2012 order of modification. 

Pursuant to the joint stipulation, the only issues remaining 

for trial were child support, child-related expenses, and attorney fees. Jennifer and Eric were the only witnesses to testify 

at trial.

Jennifer testified that she was not currently employed and 

was last employed in 2016. Jennifer explained that she was 

injured on the job in 2014 and was determined to be 100 

percent disabled. Jennifer testified that she receives monthly 

Social Security disability benefits which totaled $12,000 in 

2019 and $12,192 in 2020. The parties generally agreed that 

Jennifer’s earning capacity should be set according to her 

monthly disability benefit of $1,016.05. Eric argued that an 

additional $328 per month in dependent benefits should also 

be included, which would bring Jennifer’s monthly earning 

capacity to $1,344.05. Jennifer’s total monthly income was set 

at $1,268.63 for purposes of the 2016 modification. Whether 

or not the additional $328 is included, there was no indication that Jennifer’s earning capacity had materially changed 

since the 2016 modification. The bulk of the evidence at trial 

was devoted to alleged changes in Eric’s income and earning capacity.

Eric testified that he was presently engaged in the occupation of farming. Eric explained that he was previously 
- 803 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

employed full time as a farmhand for another farmer but left 

that employment sometime in the “fall of 2016” to pursue 

self-employment opportunities in construction and farming. 

When asked about the reason for leaving that employment, 

Eric responded only that “[i]t was not a good atmosphere.” 

For some time thereafter, Eric engaged in both farming and 

“handyman services” through his construction business. Eric 

gradually shifted to exclusively farming “[o]ver the course of 

the last few years” and had been farming full time for about a 

year at the time of trial. Eric testified that his farming operation consists of growing corn, soybeans, wheat, and alfalfa, and 

then selling those crops to “the local co-op.”

Eric testified that he stopped the construction business 

sometime prior to 2020 because he “was too busy with the 

farm.” Eric explained that his farm workload increased when 

he began farming additional land owned by his parents in 

2020. When asked how he was compensated for farming that 

additional land, Eric initially testified that his parents paid him 

in “gifts.” Furthermore, when asked how he is able to “make 

ends meet” in light of the “several years of losses as a farmer,” 

he simply responded, “Gifts from my parents.” Eric testified 

he had been receiving these gifts from his parents for “[t]wo 

to three years at least.” Eric later testified that “[m]ost of the 

time” his parents actually compensated him with grain, but he 

added that “they do give me gifts here and there to help out.” 

With regard to his income, Eric offered his 2018, 2019, and 

2020 tax returns.

Eric’s 2018 tax return shows $17,966 of income from 

his construction business, a $14,167 loss from his farming 

operation, and some other minor income, resulting in a total 

income of $4,505. Eric’s 2019 tax return shows $5,771 of 

income from his construction business and a $10,604 loss 

from his farming operation, resulting in a net loss of $4,833. 

Eric’s 2020 tax return shows no income from his construction business and a $9,140 loss from his farming operation. After carrying forward the $4,833 net loss from 2019, 
- 804 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

Eric’s 2020 tax return reflects a net loss of $13,973. Eric’s 

2020 tax return also included a 5-year tax history report 

which demonstrates that Eric’s income consistently decreased 

from 2016 to 2020. In addition to the figures discussed above, 

that report reflects a total income of $38,825 in 2016 and 

$4,699 in 2017.

Jennifer testified that she believed Eric’s bank statements 

indicate an earning capacity much higher than the income 

reflected in his tax returns. The bank statements Jennifer was 

referring to were admitted into evidence without objection 

as exhibit 37. Additionally, exhibit 42, which was admitted 

without objection as an aid to the court, contains an outline of 

deposits contained in exhibit 37.

Exhibit 37 consists of 158 pages of deposit, withdrawal, 

and debit transactions for one or more of Eric’s bank accounts 

from May 2018 to June 2021. Throughout the exhibit, there 

are a number of unidentified deposits of various amounts ranging from $18 to $25,729. Exhibit 42 isolates those unidentified 

deposits and aggregates them by year. Exhibit 42 reflects a 

total of $79,052 in unidentified deposits in 2019, as well as 

a total of $109,963 in 2020. Based on exhibit 42, Jennifer 

argued that Eric’s earning capacity was over $100,000 per 

year, or $8,646 per month.

Eric admitted that at least some of the unidentified deposits listed in exhibit 42 reflected the cash “gifts” he had been 

receiving from his parents. On redirect examination, Eric clarified that while the payments from his parents are among the 

deposits in exhibit 42, they do not account for the totality 

of those deposits. For example, Eric testified that a $25,729 

deposit in January 2020 was proceeds from selling grain, which 

was already accounted for in Eric’s tax returns. Similarly, 

Eric testified that a $10,343 deposit in April 2020 was proceeds from selling hay and that a $2,048 deposit in July 2020 

was proceeds from selling cattle. Furthermore, Eric testified 

that a $15,000 deposit in July 2020 was a loan from Eric’s 

parents he allegedly paid back in January 2021 and that a 
- 805 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

$9,000 deposit in May 2020 was proceeds from a truck, the 

majority of which was promptly debited to cover the remaining 

balance of a loan on that truck.

For purposes of child support, Eric proposed that the court 

set his earning capacity at minimum wage because “[e]ven 

though the farming times have been hard,” Eric believed that 

he was capable of earning at least minimum wage. Under 

Eric’s proposal, Jennifer owed a monthly child support obligation of $33, but Eric ultimately requested that neither party be 

ordered to pay any child support. At the conclusion of Eric’s 

testimony, the district court adjourned, and a journal entry from 

January 10, 2022, indicates that the court considered the matter submitted.

The district court eventually entered an order of modification on February 2, 2022. However, well prior to that, on 

January 12, Jennifer filed a motion to reconsider “the issues 

of child support and division of expenses as Ordered by this 

Court on or about January 11, 2022.” Upon our initial review 

of this case, it was unclear as to what order Jennifer’s motion 

referred, because the appellate record did not contain any 

order of the court from January 11. Thus, we issued an order 

to show cause seeking clarification on the timeline of events. 

In response thereto, counsel for Jennifer supplied an affidavit 

explaining that the district court announced its findings in a letter to the parties which was dated January 11, 2022. Attached 

to counsel’s affidavit was a copy of that letter, which indeed 

contained the court’s findings and directed counsel for Jennifer 

to prepare a proposed order that reflected the contents of the 

letter. Counsel further attested that she prepared and submitted 

such a proposed order, which was later signed by the district 

court and entered on February 2.

The February 2, 2022, order of modification terminated 

Eric’s child support obligation and ordered the parties to 

equally divide child-related expenses. The court further 

ordered each party responsible for his or her own attorney 

fees. Attached to that order was a child support calculation 
- 806 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

which set Jennifer’s monthly income at $1,029, and Eric’s 

monthly income was set at minimum wage. That calculation 

resulted in Eric’s owing a monthly obligation of $1, which 

the court found to be “de minimus.” The court included 

the following findings regarding the parties’ dispute over 

Eric’s income:

2. [Eric] is a farmer. While he previously supplemented his income with carpentry work, he left behind 

carpentry to focus on farming a year or two prior. . . . 

His 2018, 2019 and 2020 income tax returns show taxable income of $0.00. . . . In 2016, [Eric] had income in 

excess of $38,000.00 a year. The Court agrees that such 

a decline raises suspicions, particularly as it coincides 

with [Eric’s] obligation to pay child support for not just 

one, but three children. [Eric] agrees that he should be 

imputed income at the minimum wage, for a monthly 

income of $1,560.00;

3. [Jennifer] argues that [Eric’s] bank accounts show 

many four figure deposits, which, when averaged, yield 

a monthly income well in excess of the minimum. She 

has not, however, subjected these income amounts to 

examination by a professional accountant, nor has she 

subtracted expenses. The Court has reviewed numerous farm tax returns during its tenure, and is aware 

that farming often does not appear profitable from tax 

returns. It also understands that an analysis of income 

only will result in a distorted picture of a farm financial picture. . . . The bank accounts prove deposits, not 

expenditures. They are misleading and are disregarded 

by the Court.

On March 23, 2022, the district court held a hearing on 

Jennifer’s January 12 motion to reconsider, and it entered on 

order overruling that motion on May 11. We note, however, 

that a different district court judge conducted the hearing on 

March 23, as the trial judge had retired subsequent to entering 

the order on February 2. Jennifer appealed.
- 807 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Jennifer assigns that the district court erred in (1) finding 

that Eric’s earning capacity should be reduced, (2) reducing Eric’s child support obligation, (3) ordering the parties 

to equally divide child-related expenses, and (4) denying 

Jennifer’s motion to reconsider.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1-3] Modification of child support payments is entrusted to 

the trial court’s discretion, and although, on appeal, the issue 

is reviewed de novo on the record, we will affirm the trial 

court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion. Freeman v. 

Groskopf, 286 Neb. 713, 838 N.W.2d 300 (2013). In a review 

de novo on the record, an appellate court reappraises the 

evidence as presented by the record and reaches its own 

independent conclusions on the matters at issue. Id. When 

evidence is in conflict, the appellate court considers and may 

give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed 

the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than 

another. Id.

ANALYSIS

Jurisdiction.

Prior to addressing the merits of this case, we must briefly 

address the parties’ dispute as to this court’s jurisdiction. 

See Bryson L. v. Izabella L., 302 Neb. 145, 921 N.W.2d 829 

(2019). The notice of appeal in this case was filed on May 

26, 2022, which was far more than 30 days after the district 

court’s February 2 order of modification. On appeal, Eric suggests that Jennifer’s January 12 motion to reconsider may not 

have operated to toll the time for appeal, such that Jennifer’s 

appeal was untimely. We disagree.

[3,4] A determination as to whether a motion, however 

titled, should be deemed a motion to alter or amend a judgment depends upon the contents of the motion, not its title. 

McEwen v. Nebraska State College Sys., 303 Neb. 552, 931 

N.W.2d 120 (2019). In order to qualify for treatment as a 
- 808 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

motion to alter or amend a judgment, a motion must be filed 

no later than 10 days after the entry of judgment and must 

seek substantive alteration of the judgment. See id. A motion 

to alter or amend a judgment filed after the announcement of 

a verdict or decision but before the entry of judgment shall 

be treated as filed after the entry of judgment and on the day 

thereof. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1329 (Reissue 2016).

In the present case, the court announced its decision in a 

letter on January 11, 2022, and Jennifer’s motion was filed 

the next day. Thus, Jennifer’s motion will be treated as filed 

on February 2, when the order of modification was finally 

entered. Moreover, Jennifer’s motion clearly seeks substantive 

alteration of that judgment. Accordingly, Jennifer’s motion 

operated to toll the time for appeal until after the district 

court’s May 11 order overruling that motion. See Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 25-1912(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022). Thus, Jennifer’s May 

26 notice of appeal was timely, and we have jurisdiction over 

this appeal.

Modification of Child Support.

In her first and second assignments of error, Jennifer asserts 

that the district court erred in modifying Eric’s child support obligation on the basis of a purported reduction in Eric’s 

earning capacity. Jennifer argues that the reduction in income 

reflected by Eric’s tax returns was a voluntary reduction in 

income based on Eric’s personal wishes and did not demonstrate a corresponding decrease in Eric’s earning capacity. 

Jennifer further emphasizes Eric’s own testimony regarding 

cash gifts from his parents which were not reflected in his 

income tax returns. Altogether, Jennifer argues that Eric failed 

to prove a material change in his earning capacity, such that the 

district court erred in modifying Eric’s child support obligation. We agree.

[5-7] A party seeking to modify a child support order 

must show a material change in circumstances which (1) 

occurred subsequent to the entry of the original decree or 

previous modification and (2) was not contemplated when 
- 809 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

the decree was entered. Freeman v. Groskopf, 286 Neb. 713, 

838 N.W.2d 300 (2013). Among the factors to be considered 

in determining whether a material change of circumstances 

has occurred are changes in the financial position of the 

parent obligated to pay support, the needs of the children 

for whom support is paid, good or bad faith motive of the 

obligated parent in sustaining a reduction in income, and 

whether the change is temporary or permanent. Fetherkile v. 

Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76, 907 N.W.2d 275 (2018). The party 

seeking the modification has the burden to produce sufficient 

proof that a material change of circumstances has occurred 

that warrants a modification and that the best interests of the 

child are served thereby. Id.

Jennifer’s initial complaint for modification primarily alleged 

grounds to modify custody of the parties’ minor child. That is, 

Jennifer alleged a number of material changes in circumstances 

regarding Eric’s conduct as a parent and the living conditions at Eric’s house, but there was no allegation of a change 

in the parties’ income or earning capacity. Eric’s answer and 

counterclaim is likewise lacking any allegation that there had 

been a material change in circumstances affecting the financial 

position of the parties. Rather, Eric affirmatively alleged that 

there had not been a material change of circumstance warranting modification. Only in the alternative, if the court found 

a basis to modify custody, did Eric request an order “setting 

the financial obligations of the parties . . . as determined by 

the custodial placement set.”

While both Jennifer and Eric ostensibly requested a modification of child support in their pleadings, both requests 

were contingent upon a modification of custody. However, 

the parties subsequently stipulated to leave physical custody 

and parenting time unchanged. Once it was determined that 

there would not be a modification of physical custody or 

parenting time, the alleged change in circumstances warranting modification of child support evaporated. It is true 

that the parties’ joint stipulation provided that “[t]he parties 
- 810 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

agree a material change of circumstances has occurred since 

the entry of the Decree and Orders of Modification, which 

was not contemplated by the parties at the time the Orders 

were entered . . . .” However, the stipulation did not indicate the nature of such agreed upon change in circumstances 

as it related to child support. Rather, the parties apparently 

took for granted that Eric’s income had changed materially, 

such that the only remaining questions were whether it had 

increased or decreased and by how much.

[8] In addressing a modification of custody, the Nebraska 

Supreme Court recently reiterated that “proof of a change 

of circumstances is not an optional element to a modification proceeding.” Weaver v. Weaver, 308 Neb. 373, 388, 954 

N.W.2d 619, 630 (2021). Rather, proof of a material change 

of circumstances is the threshold inquiry in a proceeding on 

a complaint to modify, because issues determined in the prior 

custody order are deemed preclusive in the absence of proof 

of new facts and circumstances. Id. Likewise, modification of 

an existing child support order must be based on new facts 

and circumstances, and we are not bound by the parties’ stipulation that such facts and circumstances exist. See Bevins v. 

Gettman, 13 Neb. App. 555, 560, 697 N.W.2d 698, 703 (2005) 

(noting “well-established authority” that stipulation of parties 

as to child support is not binding on court). See, also, Schulze 

v. Schulze, 238 Neb. 81, 469 N.W.2d 139 (1991) (determination as to best interests of child is judicial decision based on 

evidence and not exclusively parental stipulation).

As mentioned above, the only change in circumstances 

affecting child support that was alleged in the pleadings was 

the contemplated change in custody which never materialized. 

The only other plausible change in circumstances that was discussed on the record was the purported change in Eric’s earning capacity. In that regard, Jennifer argued that Eric’s earning 

capacity had materially increased since the 2016 modification, 

whereas Eric argued that his earning capacity had materially decreased.
- 811 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

Importantly, nowhere in the district court’s order of modification did it identify a material change in circumstances warranting modification of child support. Nevertheless, the court 

proceeded to analyze the parties’ income and earning capacity 

for purposes of recalculating child support. We conclude it was 

an abuse of discretion to proceed to modification of the existing child support order without first finding a material change 

in circumstances. Thus, we examine the record to determine 

whether either party produced sufficient proof of a material change in Eric’s earning capacity since the entry of the 

2016 modification.

At trial, Jennifer’s position was that Eric’s monthly earning capacity had increased materially from $3,293 in 2016 

to $8,646 at the time of trial. In support of that position, 

Jennifer provided exhibits 37 and 42, which purported to illustrate Eric’s earning capacity through aggregate deposits into 

Eric’s bank accounts. However, as the district court rightfully 

noted, Jennifer failed to subject those exhibits to examination 

by a professional accountant or otherwise explain the extent 

to which the deposits actually reflected income as opposed to 

some other transaction. Indeed, Eric specifically controverted a 

number of the largest deposits on the grounds that they lacked 

appropriate context or were already accounted for in Eric’s 

tax returns. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that 

exhibits 37 and 42, without more, are misleading at best. Thus, 

we conclude that Jennifer failed to meet her burden to prove a 

material increase in Eric’s earning capacity.

Eric’s position at trial was that his monthly earning capacity had decreased materially from $3,293 in 2016 to minimum 

wage, or $1,560, at the time of trial. In support of that position, Eric provided his income tax returns from 2018, 2019, 

and 2020, which admittedly reflect a substantial decrease in 

his taxable income from 2016 to the time of trial. However, 

Jennifer’s position, both at trial and now on appeal, is that 

Eric’s income tax returns do not accurately reflect his earning capacity. In fact, Eric seemingly agreed that his tax 
- 812 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

returns do not accurately reflect his earning capacity, as he 

admitted that he was capable of earning at least minimum 

wage despite reporting a net loss on his tax returns for 2 years 

straight. Thus, the ultimate question on appeal is whether, independent of his admittedly misleading tax returns, Eric met his 

burden to prove a material decrease in his income.

[9,10] It is invariably concluded that a reduction in child 

support is not warranted when an obligor parent’s financial 

position diminishes due to his or her own voluntary wastage or 

dissipation of his or her talents and assets and a reduction in 

child support would seriously impair the needs of the children. 

Incontro v. Jacobs, 277 Neb. 275, 761 N.W.2d 551 (2009). 

In Schulze v. Schulze, 238 Neb. 81, 469 N.W.2d 139 (1991), 

the Supreme Court concluded that an obligor parent’s reduction in income did not warrant modification of child support 

where the reduction in income was attributable to the parent’s 

personal wishes and not the result of unfavorable or adverse 

conditions in the economy, the parent’s health, or other circumstances affecting earning capacity.

In the present case, there is no question that Eric’s taxable 

income has consistently decreased each year since the 2016 

modification. However, Eric’s own testimony suggests that 

the precipitous decline in his taxable income was the result 

of voluntary reductions in income attributable to his personal 

wishes as opposed to some other circumstances affecting 

earning capacity. The record also suggests that Eric was able 

to counter that reduction in taxable income to some extent 

through additional “gifts” from his parents over the course of 

the last few years. We note that the record is devoid of any 

evidence as to the needs of the parties’ minor child or the 

effect that the district court’s modification of child support 

may have thereon. Moreover, we agree with the district court 

that the timing of Eric’s reduction in income “raises suspicions,” as it coincided with a significant increase in Eric’s 

aggregate child support obligation.
- 813 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

In September 2016, Eric was ordered to pay $250 per 

month in child support in a separate case, and roughly 3 

months later, Eric’s monthly child support obligation in this 

case increased from $75 to $194. At that time, Eric was working full time as a farmhand and making $3,293 per month. 

Using that figure, Eric’s aggregate monthly child support 

obligation increased from $75 for one child to $444 for three 

children. Right around the time of that increase, sometime in 

“fall of 2016,” Eric left his full-time employment to pursue 

other ventures in self-employment. That career move resulted 

in a marked decrease in Eric’s annual taxable income from 

$38,825 in 2016 to $4,699 in 2017. Thereafter, Eric’s taxable 

income continued to decrease, as he eventually chose to stop 

the profitable construction business and focus exclusively on 

his unprofitable farming operation.

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Eric 

failed to meet his burden to prove a material decrease in his 

monthly earning capacity. Eric’s monthly earning capacity was 

$3,293 in 2016, and neither party produced sufficient evidence 

to reliably conclude that Eric’s current earning capacity is 

materially more or less than that. While Eric’s actual income 

has decreased since the 2016 modification, we conclude that 

decrease was a result of Eric’s personal wishes to farm exclusively and does not amount to a material change in circumstances warranting modification of child support. See Schulze 

v. Schulze, supra.

Altogether, we conclude that the district court abused its 

discretion by proceeding to modify child support without first 

satisfying the threshold inquiry as to whether there was a 

material change in circumstances. Furthermore, we conclude 

that the record in this case does not support a material change 

in circumstances warranting modification of child support. 

Thus, we reverse the district court’s modification of Eric’s 

child support obligation and reinstate the child support obligation contained in the 2016 order of modification.
- 814 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KOTAS V. BARNETT

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 799

Division of Child-Related Expenses.

Jennifer next assigns that the district court erred in ordering the parties to equally share all reasonable and necessary direct child-related expenditures. As discussed above, 

the record failed to demonstrate a material change in the 

financial positions of the parties. Moreover, there was no 

evidence regarding the actual expenses incurred on behalf of 

the parties’ minor child, let alone evidence that such expenses 

had materially changed since the 2016 modification. Without 

a material change in circumstances warranting modification 

of the existing cost-sharing arrangement, it was an abuse of 

discretion to modify the same. Thus, we reverse the district 

court’s division of child-related expenses and reinstate the 

cost-sharing arrangement as it existed prior to these modification proceedings.

Motion to Reconsider.

Lastly, Jennifer assigns that the district court erred in denying her motion to reconsider. Jennifer’s motion sought reconsideration of “the issues of child support and division of 

expenses.” Having found the district court erred in finding 

a material change in circumstances warranting modification, 

we need not address Jennifer’s last assigned error. See In re 

Adoption of Yasmin S., 308 Neb. 771, 956 N.W.2d 704 (2021) 

(appellate court not obligated to engage in analysis not necessary to adjudicate case).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s 

modification of Eric’s child support obligation and reinstate 

the child support obligation as calculated in the 2016 order of 

modification. Likewise, we reverse the district court’s modification of the parties’ cost-sharing arrangement and reinstate the cost-sharing arrangement as it existed prior to these 

proceedings.

Reversed.