Court Opinion

ID: 9692714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:01:38.775633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:36.323714
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.,
dissenting.
*155I respectfully dissent.
By taking advantage of available Nebraska statutes, petitioner has obtained two judgments against respondent— one in Box Butte County for $100 per month child support and one in Buffalo County for $150 per month child support. The record shows that although respondent is apparently now current on his Box Butte County judgment, he has in the past been cited for contempt of court in both counties for failure to pay child support. This result is obviously not just or equitable, and is not in conformity with Nebraska law.
Petitioner had the Box Butte County judgment in full force and effect when she sought further equitable relief from the district court for Buffalo County by seeking dissolution of her marriage to respondent. The petitioner could have satisfied and obtained a release of the Box Butte County child support judgment, but did not. The respondent could have applied for relief in the Box Butte County District Court, but did not. The district court for Box Butte County could not (except at the request of a party) afford any relief. The district court for Buffalo County could not in any way change the Box Butte County judgment. In this situation I would hold that, while the district court for Buffalo County has jurisdiction over all aspects of the dissolution of marriage case between these litigants, the district court for Buffalo County must give full force and effect to the child support judgment of the district court for Box Butte County as determined by that court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-512.04 (Reissue 1984).
The Box Butte County District Court had full jurisdiction over the parties, both of whom resided in that county and both of whom subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the Box Butte County District Court. The Box Butte County District Court also had jurisdiction over the subject matter under § 43-512.04. It is clear that § 43-512.04 is a statute included in article 5 of chapter 43 and that this chapter deals primarily with problems connected with aid to dependent children. Article 5, however, is entitled “Assistance for Certain Children,” and expressly covers the situation presented in this case, where a parent has engaged the services of the local county attorney to obtain child support from a parent against whom no *156dissolution action is pending. Petitioner received the child support payments under the Box Butte judgment and has not received any further welfare payments. This procedure is specifically referred to in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-512.01 (Reissue 1984), which directs the county attorney to file a civil petition against a nonsupporting parent in certain instances, and in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-512.02(1) (Reissue 1984), which requires that “the same child support collection . . . services as are provided to dependent children” be made available to “[a]ny child, or any relative of such a child.”
Venue in Box Butte County was proper. The Box Butte County judgment is in effect and binding on these parties until such time as it is fully satisfied or otherwise disposed of. While it is in full force and effect, it is a bar to further litigation of the child support issue except as that child support judgment may be modified pursuant to appropriate Nebraska statutes.
It is clear that a child support judgment, whether based on an agreement of the parties or a judgment rendered after trial, may be modified. See, Gray v. Gray, 192 Neb. 392, 220 N.W.2d 542 (1974); Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer, 201 Neb. 56, 266 N.W.2d 82 (1978). It is also settled that an application to modify a child support award cannot be heard in a county other than the county in which the child support proceeding is pending, except that the parties may stipulate that a case may be heard in any county pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-734(1)(a) (Cum. Supp. 1984). Hanson v. Hanson, 195 Neb. 836, 241 N.W.2d 131 (1976).
I can see no reason to treat a child support judgment rendered under § 43-512.04 any differently than a child support judgment rendered pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364 (Reissue 1984), or, for that matter, differently than any other judgment. With apologies to Gertrude Stein, “A judgment is a judgment is a judgment.” The Legislature has provided two separate procedures through which a child support judgment may be obtained, and the binding effect of child support judgments obtained in either way is conclusive on any later proceedings on the same issue between the same parties. Accordingly, the child support judgment rendered in Box Butte County is res judicata on the child support issue in the later proceedings between the same parties, so long as the Box Butte *157County judgment remains in effect. If that judgment is terminated, of course, a different case is presented. So long as the Box Butte County judgment remains prospectively effective, that judgment may be modified only through appropriate procedures in Box Butte County.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court for Buffalo County in all respects, except that I would vacate the portion of the judgment providing for child support. I would tax all costs and attorney fees in this court to petitioner, since it has been the voluntary choice of petitioner to present this problem to two district courts and this court.
Caporale and Shanahan, JJ., join in this dissent.