A-25-43, Riley Grams (Appellant) v. Tiffany Minnick
Kearney County, District Court, Judge Morgan R. Farquhar
Attorneys for Appellant: Loralea L. Frank and Isabelle R. Zito (Bruner, Frank, Schumacher, Husak & Simpson, L.L.C.)
Attorney for Appellee: Adam R. Little (Nebraska Legal Group)
Civil Action: Modification of Child Custody and Child Support
Action Taken by Trial Court: Grams and Minnick have a son who was born in 2018. They entered into a settlement agreement that was approved by the district court in 2019, wherein they had joint legal custody, and Minnick had primary physical custody, subject to Grams’ parenting time as provided in the parenting plan (increasing parenting time working toward every other weekend and one evening each week; also increasing number of weeks of summer parenting time beginning in 2019). Additionally, Grams’ child support obligation was $656 per month.
In 2023, Grams filed a complaint for modification seeking joint legal and physical custody of the parties’ son, week-on-week-off parenting time, and a recalculation of child support. Minnick filed a “counter-complaint” seeking full legal and physical custody of the parties’ son, a modification of the summer parenting time schedule, and a modification of child support.
Following a trial, the district court denied modification of physical custody after finding that Grams failed to prove that there had been a material change in circumstances. However, the court approved the parties’ stipulation that the summer parenting time should be modified. The court also modified child support, increasing Grams’ obligation to $1,274 per month, with a 50 percent abatement for the summer months. The court subsequently denied Grams’ motion for new trial or, in the alternative, to alter or amend.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Grams assigns that the district court abused its discretion by (1) not finding a material change in circumstance existed to modify the prior custody order, (2) failing to award him joint physical custody, (3) not awarding him week-on-week-off parenting time, (4) adopting a child support calculation that (a) was not a joint custody calculation and (b) incorrectly calculated his income, and (5) denying his motion for new trial or, in the alternative, to alter or amend.