Oral Arguments are happening now. View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

Self-Help Center

You are here

Molina v. Salgado-Bustamante

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Wednesday, April 10, 2013

A-12-0607, Nanci Molina, individually and as next friend for Agustin Bustamante-Molina v. Augustin Salgado-Bustamante (Appellant)

District Court for Douglas County, District Judge J. Russell Derr

Attorneys for Appellant:  John J. Heieck & Matthew Stuart Higgins (Higgins Law Office)

Attorney for Appellees:  Catherine M. Mahern (Abrahams Legal Clinic)

Civil Action:  Paternity, child support

Action taken by the Trial Court:  The trial court entered an order for paternity, custody, and prospective and retroactive child support. On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals summarily remanded for preparation of child support worksheets. On remand, the trial court entered another order and attached the applicable worksheets. The court overruled the father’s motion for new trial, and he perfected the present appeal.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  Did the trial court err in deviating from the Court of Appeals’ specific instructions to attach worksheets for retroactive and prospective child support to the trial court’s new order, because the new order substantively and dramatically changed the financial obligations owed by Salgado-Bustamante to Molina in a manner neither contemplated by the Court of Appeals’ specific remand instructions nor allowed under the well-established mandate rule? Did the trial court err in failing to grant Salgado-Bustamante’s motion for new trial? Did the trial court err in concluding that the parties permanently separated in June 2005 and failing to account for subsequent periods of cohabitation when adopting Molina’s Worksheet 1? Did the trial court err in failing to apply all applicable equitable credits to which Salgado-Bustamante was entitled? Did the trial court err in increasing Salgado-Bustamante’s monthly prospective child support from $360 to $540.29 despite a voluntary stipulation between the parties to the contrary?


This page was last modified on Wednesday, October 15, 2014