S-25-0050 Laura A. Kingston (Appellee) v. Trevor L. Kingston (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge W. Russell Bowie
Attorneys: Kathryn D. Putman (Astley Putnam, P.C., L.L.O. for Appellant) and Benjamin M. Belmont and Mariah E. Shaffer (Brodkey, Cuddigan, Peebles, Belmont & Line, LLP for Appellee)
Civil: Modification of child support
Proceedings Below: Appellee sought to modify child support and alleged that when including Appellant’s Restricted Stock Awards, a material change of circumstances existed that would increase his child support obligation. The child support referee increased Appellant’s child support obligation, and the district court affirmed. On its own motion, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Nebraska Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant assigns the following errors: 1) The trial court erred in its determination that Vanderveer v. Vanderveer, 310 Neb. 196, 964 N.W.2d 694 (2021), constituted “new law” in the State of Nebraska for purposes of modification; 2) The trial court erred in its determination that Appellee could relitigate the inclusion of Appellant’s Restricted Stock Awards in his income available for support, as her claim was barred by the doctrines of issue preclusion, claim preclusion, and res judicata; 3) Even if the Vanderveer case provides an independent material change in circumstances to all litigants for purposes of modifying support, this case is distinguishable, and the Restricted Stock Awards should still have been excluded; 4) The trial court erred in calculating Appellant’s income available to pay child support; 5) The trial court erred in finding that Appellee met her burden to show a material change in circumstances warranting modification of child support; and 6) The trial court erred in failing to set a reasonable timeframe for the parties to request reimbursement for the children’s expenses from the other.
On cross-appeal, Appellee assigns the following errors: 1) The trial court abused its discretion in failing to apply the new child support obligation retroactively to the first day of the month following the filing of the complaint for modification; and 2) The trial court erred in failing to award attorney fees to Appellee.