Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A husband and wife, both real estate professionals, were married for 31 years and jointly owned several properties, including two farms, residential homes, and business assets acquired during the marriage. The couple had no children together but each had adult children from prior marriages. During the marriage, they operated a real estate business and were equal shareholders in a grain company that was dissolved before the divorce proceedings. The husband claimed certain assets as nonmarital property, including proceeds from a premarital business and an inheritance, and also sought to have debts incurred during the marriage, such as a COVID-related loan and loans taken to pay temporary spousal support, treated as marital debts. Additionally, a third party, J.E.M. Farms, LLC, intervened, claiming a one-half interest in one of the farms based on a prior agreement and financial contributions.The District Court for Antelope County conducted a bifurcated trial, first addressing the intervenor’s claim and then the dissolution action. The court entered a consent decree quieting title to half of one farm in favor of J.E.M. Farms, with all parties agreeing to pay their own attorney fees and costs. In the dissolution proceedings, the court found that the husband failed to adequately trace most of his claimed nonmarital assets, except for $260,000 from his inheritance that was used to purchase one farm. The court also found insufficient evidence to treat the COVID loan as an outstanding marital debt or to find dissipation by the wife. The court ordered both farms to be sold, with the proceeds divided equally after accounting for the nonmarital inheritance, and denied the husband’s request for attorney fees related to the intervention.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo for abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the husband did not meet his burden to trace additional nonmarital property, that the consent decree barred his claim for attorney fees related to the intervention, and that the order to sell the farms was reasonable under the circumstances. The court also found no error in the treatment of debts or in the division of property. View "White v. White" on Justia Law

A married couple with three children sought dissolution of their marriage after nearly two decades together. The parties’ relationship had become highly contentious, with each parent seeking custody of the children and making allegations about the other’s parenting, mental health, and conduct. During the proceedings, a temporary protection order was issued, later modified, and the parties alternated between joint and sole custody arrangements for their children. At trial, both sides presented extensive evidence, including testimony from psychologists, therapists, family members, and friends, regarding the children’s best interests, the parents’ mental health, and allegations of alienation and abuse.The District Court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, conducted a bench trial and ultimately dissolved the marriage. The court awarded joint legal custody but granted primary physical custody and final decision-making authority over medical, educational, and religious matters to the mother. The court found that, while both parents had strengths and weaknesses, the mother generally acted in the children’s best interests, and the father’s actions had contributed to alienation of the children from their mother. The court also divided the marital estate, awarding the mother the marital home and the father a cabin, and ordered the father to pay alimony, a portion of the children’s extracurricular expenses, and attorney fees. Both parties filed post-trial motions, resulting in minor amendments to the decree.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo, applying an abuse of discretion standard. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the custody determination, allocation of extracurricular expenses, division of property, alimony, and attorney fee awards were all within the trial court’s discretion and supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s order in all respects. View "Scott v. Scott" on Justia Law

A married couple with two children entered into a legal separation after signing a settlement agreement that addressed property division, child custody and support, and alimony. The agreement was incorporated into a legal separation decree by the District Court for Scotts Bluff County, which found the agreement fair and not unconscionable. The husband did not appeal this decree. Several months later, the wife filed for dissolution of marriage, and both parties again signed a settlement agreement, which referenced the prior separation decree as resolving all substantive issues. After the husband discovered an undisclosed retirement account, the parties agreed to modify the equalization payment to the wife, and the court approved this modification.The first dissolution decree was entered before the statutory 60-day waiting period had elapsed, rendering it void. The wife moved for a new dissolution decree, and the court entered an operative dissolution decree after the waiting period, incorporating the prior agreements and the modified equalization payment. The husband, now represented by counsel, sought to vacate both the separation and dissolution decrees, arguing the separation decree was void for lack of a required written certification that the parties would live separate and apart, and that the agreements were unconscionable. He also argued that the dissolution decree was barred by issue preclusion and that the settlement agreements should be set aside.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the absence of a written certification under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-361.01 was not a jurisdictional defect and did not render the separation decree void. The court further held that the separation decree was a final, appealable order, and because it was not timely appealed, its terms could not be collaterally attacked except under limited circumstances such as fraud or gross inequity, which were not present. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s approval of the settlement agreements and affirmed the judgment. View "Benda v. Sole" on Justia Law

Stacy L. Jones and Joshua Colgrove were in a relationship and had a child, B.C. After their separation, Stacy moved to Lincoln, Nebraska, with B.C. and her other children. Joshua, who was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre syndrome, did not initially seek custody. Stacy was later convicted of felony child abuse and placed on probation, leading to juvenile court proceedings where B.C. was placed in foster care. Joshua's request for B.C.'s placement with him was denied due to his non-compliance with DHHS requests. The juvenile court eventually found Stacy rehabilitated and awarded her custody of B.C., issuing a bridge order transferring jurisdiction to the district court.The district court entered a custody decree consistent with the juvenile court's order. Joshua filed a petition for modification, and the State filed a complaint to establish child and medical support. The district court overruled Joshua's motion to dismiss the State's complaint and required him to pay child support. The court also issued an amended custody decree after the juvenile court corrected minor errors in its bridge order. Joshua's motions to reconsider and strike the amended orders were denied.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court's findings, including Stacy's compliance with rehabilitative measures and her ability to protect B.C., were supported by evidence. The court also held that the State's intervention to establish child support was permissible under the relevant statutes. The court determined that the issue of the amended orders was moot and did not warrant further review. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to Stacy, requiring Joshua to handle transportation for parenting time, and not awarding Joshua the child tax credit. View "Jones v. Colgrove" on Justia Law

In this case, Matthew M. Jaksha and Jessica L. Jaksha's marriage was dissolved in 2017, with a stipulated decree awarding joint legal and physical custody of their minor child. In 2020, a modification awarded Matthew sole legal custody, while Jessica retained decision-making over the child's religious upbringing. In 2021, another modification granted Matthew sole legal and physical custody, with a tiered parenting plan for Jessica's supervised and unsupervised parenting time, contingent on her sobriety.Jessica filed a complaint to modify in 2023, citing her sustained sobriety, but the district court dismissed it, finding no material change in circumstances. Jessica did not appeal this decision but instead filed a complaint in 2024 to vacate or amend the 2021 modification order, arguing it was not a final order and should be relitigated.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the 2021 modification order was final as it resolved all issues raised in the modification pleadings. The court also found that the district court correctly refused to vacate or modify the order, as Jessica's complaint was filed long after the term in which the order was entered, and she failed to establish grounds under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4) or any equitable basis for vacating the order. The court also declined to consider Jessica's argument that the order was void as against public policy, as it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "Jaksha v. Jaksha" on Justia Law

Tara Gentele and Christopher Gentele were involved in divorce proceedings and attempted to resolve their disputes through mediation. Christopher claimed that a settlement agreement was reached during mediation, but Tara denied this. Christopher then asked the district court to enforce the settlement agreement. The district court found that a settlement agreement had been reached and entered a dissolution decree based on its terms. The decree required Christopher to make equalization payments to Tara and to divide certain credit card rewards points between them. Christopher made the first payment and transferred the rewards points, which Tara accepted. Tara then filed an appeal, arguing that the district court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement.The district court for Lancaster County found that the parties had reached an enforceable settlement agreement during mediation and entered a dissolution decree based on that agreement. Tara accepted the benefits provided by the decree but subsequently filed an appeal challenging the enforcement of the settlement agreement.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that Tara's appeal was precluded by the acceptance of benefits rule. This rule generally prevents an appellant from accepting the benefits of a judgment and then appealing the parts of the judgment that are unfavorable. The court found that Tara's acceptance of the equalization payment and rewards points was inconsistent with her appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the acceptance of benefits rule applied and barred Tara from challenging the decree. View "Gentele v. Gentele" on Justia Law

Megan E. Hawk and David P. Hawk were involved in a marital dissolution action where the district court ordered David to pay Megan a cash equalization payment of nearly $3 million in eight annual installments, with interest accruing at a rate of 7.264% per annum. Megan filed a motion to alter or amend the decree, which the court partially granted, specifying that each installment would include accrued interest. Megan later filed a motion requesting the court to clarify that payments be made through the court clerk and to attach an amortization schedule.The district court for Douglas County initially modified the decree to specify the payment schedule and interest accrual. After the court's term ended, Megan filed another motion, which the court treated as a request to alter or amend the judgment rather than a nunc pro tunc order. The court held a hearing and clarified that interest would start accruing from the date the first payment was due, not from the date of the decree. The court also directed the court clerk to record the judgment and calculate the balance and interest.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and determined that the district court had the inherent power to modify its judgment within the term, as extended by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(1). The court held that the rights of a party seeking relief under this statute become fixed at the time the motion is filed, even if the disposition occurs after the term ends. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to modify the interest accrual date and affirmed the order. View "Hawk v. Hawk" on Justia Law

Abby G. Poitier, now known as Abby G. Cullins, filed a complaint in the district court for Douglas County to modify a previously entered paternity decree, seeking increased parenting time with her child, S.B. On the day of the trial, she sought to voluntarily dismiss her complaint. The trial court granted the dismissal without conditions and proceeded to trial on the counterclaim filed by Brian P. Beatty, which included a request for attorney fees. Although Brian was not successful on his counterclaim, the district court awarded him a portion of his attorney fees, finding Abby's complaint to be frivolous and interposed solely for delay or harassment.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order. The appellate court reasoned that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-603, the district court retained jurisdiction to consider Brian's counterclaim for attorney fees even after Abby dismissed her complaint. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the district court's award of attorney fees, noting that Abby had not made efforts to have a relationship with S.B. since 2019 and had dismissed her complaint on the day of trial without notice.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court agreed that the district court had jurisdiction to consider Brian's counterclaim for attorney fees and that the award of $1,500 in attorney fees was reasonable. The court found that Abby's actions were frivolous and interposed for delay or harassment, supporting the lower courts' decisions. View "Beatty v. Poitier" on Justia Law

Sarah A. Backhaus and David R. Backhaus were married in 2010 and separated in February 2021. Sarah filed for divorce in April 2022. During the marriage, David received an inheritance, which he deposited into a jointly held savings account (account x4020). At the time of their separation, the account had a balance of $323,571.70. David claimed that the funds in the account were nonmarital, originating from his inheritance, while Sarah contended that the funds were marital property.The district court for Douglas County held a two-day trial in March 2023. David testified about his inheritance and its source, explaining that the funds were deposited into account x4020. He also described various expenditures made from the inheritance, including cars, his education, and the startup costs for Sarah's business. The district court found David's testimony credible and determined that the funds in account x4020 were nonmarital property, awarding the balance to David.Sarah appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals concluded that David's testimony was insufficient to establish the nonmarital nature of the funds in account x4020, as it lacked specific details about the inheritance amount, its expenditure, and the account into which it was deposited. The Court of Appeals directed that the funds be included in the marital estate and divided equitably.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that David's testimony, along with circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the funds in account x4020 were nonmarital. The court emphasized that credible testimony alone can establish a nonmarital interest in property. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to affirm the district court's order. View "Backhaus v. Backhaus" on Justia Law

Clint Seemann and Lisa Seemann, now known as Lisa Newell, married in 2005 and executed a premarital agreement listing their premarital assets, which included land and shares of stock, to be considered marital property. The agreement specified that these assets, along with any property resulting from their efforts during the marriage, should be divided equally in the event of death or divorce. In 2021, Clint filed for divorce.The District Court for Douglas County initially valued Lisa’s retirement accounts at $1,480,720 and included them in the marital estate. It determined that Clint’s membership interest in 75th and L Street, LLC, and its appreciation were nonmarital property. The court found the premarital agreement enforceable and divided the marital estate equally, ordering Lisa to make an equalization payment to Clint. Lisa appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court in Seemann v. Seemann (Seemann I) found errors in the district court’s valuation and inclusion of certain assets, remanding the case for redivision of the marital estate.On remand, the district court divided the marital property into two groups: assets listed in the agreement and the remainder of the marital estate. It equally divided the listed assets but awarded Clint all the assets added on remand without ordering an equalization payment, resulting in an unequal division of the total marital estate. Lisa received 45.25% of the total marital estate, while Clint received 54.75%.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and held that the premarital agreement required an equal division of the entire marital estate. The court reversed the district court’s division and remanded with directions to divide the entire marital estate equally. View "Seemann v. Seemann" on Justia Law