Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mohammed v. Rojas

Court of Appeals of Nebraska

June 20, 2017

Imad K. Mohammed, appellee,
v.
Claudia D. Rojas, APPELLEE, and STATE OF NEBRASKA, INTERVENOR-APPELLANT.

         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, the decision of the trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.

         2. Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.

         3. Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that the trial court has not decided.

         4. 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.

         5. Modification of Decree: Child Support. A material change in circumstances must exist at the time of the modification trial because the court's decision to modify child support must be based upon the evidence presented in support of the complaint to modify and because the change in circumstances cannot be temporary.

         6. 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.

         7. Judgments: Appeal and Error. Where the record demonstrates that the decision of the trial court is correct, although such correctness is based [24 Neb.App. 811] on a ground or reason different from that assigned by the trial court, an appellate court will affirm.

         Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Darla S. Ideus, Judge. Affirmed.

          Joe Kelly, Lancaster County Attorney, and Jessica A. Murphy for intervenor-appellant.

          Mark T. Bestul, of Legal Aid of Nebraska, for appellee Imad K. Mohammed.

          Pirtle, Bishop, and Arterburn, Judges.

          Pirtle, Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         The State of Nebraska, on behalf of the State of California, appeals from an order of the district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, which found that no material change in circumstances had occurred to warrant a modification of Imad K. Mohammed's child support obligation for his and Claudia D. Rojas' two minor children. Based on the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         BACKGROUND

         Mohammed and Rojas were married in February 2001, and two children were born of the marriage-one in October 2002 and one in April 2004. In August 2011, a decree was entered in Maricopa County, Arizona, dissolving their marriage, granting Rojas sole custody of the children, and entering a child support order. The Arizona court approved a downward deviation in child support from the guidelines' amount of $92.13 to $0, based upon an agreement of Mohammed and Rojas. The parties agreed to deviate "because of [Mohammed's] economic circumstances and state of health, and because the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.