Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Two individuals, who had been romantically involved and shared two minor children, ended their relationship in 2016. The mother was awarded legal and physical custody, with the father receiving parenting time under a court-ordered plan. Over subsequent years, the father’s parenting time was suspended due to his refusal or failure to provide negative drug tests, as required by court orders. He also accrued child support arrears and was imprisoned for criminal offenses between August 2023 and August 2024. In May 2024, while the father was incarcerated, the mother filed a complaint to terminate his parental rights, citing abandonment and neglect. The father alleged he was prevented from contacting the children due to changes in contact information and sought a contempt citation against the mother for not facilitating communication.The District Court for Seward County, Nebraska, presided over the termination action and the contempt request. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the father had abandoned the children for at least six months prior to the complaint and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The court also found the father had not exercised or attempted parenting time, nor paid child support during the relevant period, and that his abandonment both preceded and continued after his incarceration. The contempt request was denied, as the court found the mother was not in willful contempt.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the district court was the appropriate forum to hear the termination proceeding, that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of parental rights, and that the contempt issue was moot following termination. The order terminating parental rights was affirmed. View "Roth v. Marcoe" on Justia Law

A husband and wife disputed the division of assets as part of their divorce proceedings. Before their marriage, the husband purchased two lots of land, Lot 14 and Lot 15, with separate funds and took out loans to build improvements on each. The house and shed on Lot 14, and a barn on Lot 15, were completed before the marriage. After marriage, marital funds were used to pay down the loans, and the husband later paid off remaining balances with his separate, inherited funds. The couple jointly owned and operated the barn on Lot 15 through an LLC.The District Court for Washington County initially classified the land and improvements as the husband’s separate property but credited the marital estate with the payments made from marital funds. The court found the increase in value during the marriage was passive appreciation and thus separate property. The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed this treatment for the land but concluded the barn was marital property. Upon further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court adopted the “source of funds” rule, remanded for consideration of this rule, and affirmed the barn’s marital classification.On remand, a different district judge, relying on the existing record, applied the source of funds rule to the land and improvements and again divided the marital estate equally. The husband appealed, arguing for an evidentiary hearing and contesting the application of the source of funds rule.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing, as its mandate did not specify one. The Court clarified that the land remained the husband’s separate property, as it was acquired before marriage and marital funds were not used for its acquisition. The Court applied the source of funds rule to the improvements, recalculated the marital interest, and modified the equalization payment accordingly. The decree of dissolution was affirmed as modified. View "Stava v. Stava" on Justia Law

A married couple divorced after over a decade together, during which the husband served in the U.S. Air Force and earned military retirement benefits. Upon retirement, he elected a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) covering his spouse and minor child. When the parties separated, they resolved most issues through a settlement agreement, dividing property and assigning the wife a share of the husband’s military retirement. However, they left unresolved who should be the SBP beneficiary after divorce and who should pay the associated premiums. The parties stipulated that SBP coverage for a former spouse would preclude coverage for a future spouse, and that the court could order the wife to reimburse the husband for any portion of the SBP premium.The District Court for Scotts Bluff County incorporated the settlement agreement and ruled that the husband must maintain the wife as an SBP beneficiary until he remarried, at which point he could replace her with a new spouse as beneficiary. The court also required the wife to reimburse the husband for the cost of her SBP coverage. The wife appealed, challenging both the permission for the husband to replace her as beneficiary upon remarriage and the requirement to pay the SBP premiums.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo for abuse of discretion. It held that federal law governing SBPs does not allow a service member to designate a former spouse as beneficiary and later replace that beneficiary with a new spouse, except in limited statutory circumstances. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion by permitting the husband to remove the wife as beneficiary upon remarriage. The court modified the order to strike that provision, affirming the remainder, including the requirement that the wife reimburse the husband for SBP premiums. Affirmed as modified. View "Wahl v. Wahl" on Justia Law

The case involved Christopher J., the natural father of three children, whose parental rights were challenged following their removal from his care in January 2021. This removal came after allegations by the children of physical abuse, exposure to domestic violence, and substance abuse. Prior to this, in 2016, a juvenile court case involving the family had resulted in the children being returned to Christopher’s care for five months before the subsequent removal. The children's mother had previously had her parental rights terminated and was not involved in this appeal.After the 2021 removal, the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County adjudicated the children under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a). Christopher appealed the adjudication, but the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision in March 2022. Following adjudication, Christopher’s visitation with the children was initially permitted but later suspended pending a psychological evaluation. Despite attempts, visitation never resumed, due in part to Christopher’s lack of engagement with services and the therapists’ recommendations. In September 2023, the State filed to terminate Christopher’s parental rights, presenting evidence of neglect, failure of reunification efforts, prolonged out-of-home placement, aggravated circumstances, and the children’s best interests.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. It found clear and convincing evidence that the statutory basis for termination was satisfied, specifically that the children had been in out-of-home placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 22 months. The Court held that termination of Christopher’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children, citing his refusal to acknowledge past abuse and inability to rehabilitate. The Court rejected Christopher’s argument of improper delegation regarding visitation decisions, concluding no such delegation occurred. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. View "In re Interest of Bosileo D." on Justia Law

A married couple with two children separated after the wife filed for dissolution of marriage. They agreed to share joint physical custody of their children on a rotating schedule and resolved property division, but disagreed on legal custody, the children’s involvement with the father’s church, and attendance at a church-affiliated summer camp during the father’s parenting time. The mother had been primarily responsible for the children’s health care and educational needs. She objected to the children’s continued involvement with the father’s church and church camp, citing concerns about religious teachings and values, though she had not objected to their attendance at non-church camps.The District Court for Buffalo County held a trial on these contested issues. It awarded sole legal custody to the mother, finding her to be primarily responsible for the children’s health and educational decisions. The court determined that, because of significant disagreements between the parents, sole legal custody was appropriate and in the children’s best interests. The court found no evidence that the father’s religious practices posed any threat to the children’s well-being and allowed him to involve the children in church activities during his parenting time. However, it concluded that the church camp was an extracurricular activity, granting the mother, as sole legal custodian, the authority to decide on the children’s attendance, including during the father’s parenting time.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo. It affirmed the award of sole legal custody to the mother, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it modified the lower court’s decree to remove the provision that allowed the mother to prevent the father from enrolling the children in the church camp during his parenting time, holding there was no evidence of harm from attending the camp. The judgment was affirmed as modified. View "Munsell v. Munsell" on Justia Law

A mother, Leah, relinquished her parental rights to her young son, Jordon, after Jordon had been removed from her home over concerns about her and the father’s ability to care for him. Leah had previously relinquished rights to two older children, who were adopted by her father and stepmother, and Jordon was ultimately placed with a relative of his father. In November 2022, Leah executed a written relinquishment of her rights, witnessed by her attorney and social workers. Afterwards, Jordon was adopted by the relative. Months later, Leah sought to rescind her relinquishment, alleging she did not act voluntarily due to her intellectual disability and claimed she was subjected to threats, coercion, and promises by her ex-husband, his family, and the adoptive parent.Her initial attempt to invalidate the relinquishment in the County Court for Dodge County was denied without an evidentiary hearing. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a hearing. On remand, the juvenile court received testimony from Leah, her ex-husband, his relatives, social workers, and her attorney. The court found Leah’s relinquishment was not the result of fraud, duress, threats, or coercion. The court gave weight to evidence that Leah initiated and insisted on relinquishment, understood its consequences, and was not unduly pressured by others. Leah’s intellectual disability was considered, but the court found she comprehended the act’s meaning and effect.On de novo review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's order, holding that Leah did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that her relinquishment was invalid. The Court clarified that a properly executed, voluntary relinquishment is irrevocable absent proof of threats, coercion, fraud, or duress, and that subsequent changes of heart or noncompliance with informal contact agreements do not invalidate such relinquishments. View "In re Interest of Jordon B." on Justia Law

In this case, a divorced couple disputed the calculation of child support payments. The father was originally ordered to pay child support based on his salary and bonuses, with restricted stock units (RSUs) he received from his employer excluded as income but divided as marital property. After their divorce, the father began selling his RSUs, which he had not done during the marriage. The mother then sought to modify the child support order, arguing that the RSU sales represented a material change in circumstances and that future RSU income should be considered for child support purposes.After the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed earlier appeals for lack of jurisdiction, the mother filed a complaint to modify child support in the District Court for Douglas County. A child support referee found that the father’s post-divorce sales of RSUs constituted a material change in circumstances, justifying a recalculation of child support. The referee included the RSU income, along with salary and bonuses, in determining the father’s income, and recommended increasing the child support payments. The referee also recommended that the modification be applied retroactively to a date later than the mother requested and that both parties pay their own attorney fees. The district court adopted these recommendations in full.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the father’s sale of RSUs after the divorce was a material change in circumstances not contemplated in the original decree, making claim and issue preclusion doctrines inapplicable. The Supreme Court also found no abuse of discretion in including RSU income, averaging bonus payments, accounting for taxes, or in the district court’s decisions regarding retroactivity and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Kingston v. Kingston" on Justia Law

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