Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree issued by the district court, which differed from the court’s previously entered decree of legal separation and included an award of alimony and an award of attorney fees to Wife.After the district court issued a decree of legal separation, Husband filed a motion to amend the complaint from legal separation to dissolution of marriage. The district court filed a decree of dissolution that, among other things, awarded Wife alimony in an amount that equaled the health insurance costs which Husband had been paying under the decree of legal separation. In modifying the legal separation decree, the court determined that it would be necessary for Wife to show a change of circumstances in order to be entitled to an award of alimony in the divorce decree, which Wife had not done. Nonetheless, the district court awarded Wife alimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wife was not required to show a change of circumstances for purposes of good cause to modify the award of alimony awarded in the decree of legal separation, but any error by the court in its analysis was not prejudicial to Wife; and (2) the district court did not err in awarding Wife one-half of her attorney fees. View "Connolly v. Connolly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree issued by the district court, which differed from the court’s previously entered decree of legal separation and included an award of alimony and an award of attorney fees to Wife.After the district court issued a decree of legal separation, Husband filed a motion to amend the complaint from legal separation to dissolution of marriage. The district court filed a decree of dissolution that, among other things, awarded Wife alimony in an amount that equaled the health insurance costs which Husband had been paying under the decree of legal separation. In modifying the legal separation decree, the court determined that it would be necessary for Wife to show a change of circumstances in order to be entitled to an award of alimony in the divorce decree, which Wife had not done. Nonetheless, the district court awarded Wife alimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wife was not required to show a change of circumstances for purposes of good cause to modify the award of alimony awarded in the decree of legal separation, but any error by the court in its analysis was not prejudicial to Wife; and (2) the district court did not err in awarding Wife one-half of her attorney fees. View "Connolly v. Connolly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution decree entered by the district court dissolving the marriage of Father and Mother. On appeal, Father argued that the court erred in finding that he was the legal father of one of the children and in ordering him to pay child support for that child and two other children, pursuant to an order for support in a separate case. Specifically, Father argued that the court erred in not making an independent termination regarding child support and attaching a child support calculation worksheet to the decree. The Supreme Court rejected Father’s arguments, holding (1) the existing order of support was res judicata on the issue of Father’s paternity; (2) Father failed to elicit sufficient evidence to warrant a modification of the existing order of support; (3) because the court did not modify the existing order of support, it was not required to attach a worksheet to its decree; and (4) Father’s remaining arguments on appeal were without merit. View "Fetherkile v. Fetherkile" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution decree entered by the district court dissolving the marriage of Father and Mother. On appeal, Father argued that the court erred in finding that he was the legal father of one of the children and in ordering him to pay child support for that child and two other children, pursuant to an order for support in a separate case. Specifically, Father argued that the court erred in not making an independent termination regarding child support and attaching a child support calculation worksheet to the decree. The Supreme Court rejected Father’s arguments, holding (1) the existing order of support was res judicata on the issue of Father’s paternity; (2) Father failed to elicit sufficient evidence to warrant a modification of the existing order of support; (3) because the court did not modify the existing order of support, it was not required to attach a worksheet to its decree; and (4) Father’s remaining arguments on appeal were without merit. View "Fetherkile v. Fetherkile" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Appellant’s appeal from the denial of the portion of his complaint and associated motion asking the district court to declare void a dissolution decree that it had issued more than a year previously.Appellant filed a “complaint” under the same case number as the dissolution decree asserting that the decree was void by virtue of a motion to dismiss he filed prior to the entry of the decree. However, Appellant’s notice of appeal was from an April 4 order denying his requests for various temporary orders and retaining for decision his application to modify the custody provisions of the decree. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the appeal because the April 4 ruling was not a final order. View "Tilson v. Tilson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part the district court’s decree of dissolution in this case, as modified, and vacated in part the decree.In its decree of dissolution, the district court dissolved the marriage of Mark Constot and Maria Onstot, divided their assets and debts, and awarded spousal support for Maria. The contested issues at trial, as relevant to this appeal, were the equitable division of the house Mark owned prior to the marriage and the determination of appropriate spousal support for Maria. The Supreme Court held (1) the order of spousal support was not an abuse of discretion; (2) the district court’s requirement that Mark refinance the mortgage on the house within sixty days was an abuse of discretion, and the decree is modified to extend the time period to six months from the filing of the mandate in the district court; and (3) the portion of the district court’s order stating that Mark’s support obligation would terminate upon Maria’s cohabitation with a significant other was vacated because Maria’s cohabitation with another person was not within the parties’ contemplation at the time of the entry of the decree. View "Onstot v. Onstot" on Justia Law

At issue in this custody action was whether the district court’s consent to adoption or the court’s stay of the custody action pending the resolution of the adoption petition presented a final order.Plaintiff, the former partner of the biological mother of the child in this case, brought this custody action, alleging that she had loco parentis status to the child. Approximately one month after Plaintiff’s custody action was filed. Defendant, the biological mother, and her wife then filed a petition in county court for stepparent adoption. The district court consented to the adoption and state the custody action pending the resolution of the adoption petition. Plaintiff appealed the order consenting to the adoption proceeding. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal, holding that neither that order granting consent to adoption nor the order staying the custody proceedings pending further order of the court presented a final, appealable order. View "Jennifer T. v. Lindsay P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court finding Father in willful contempt of a support order for failure to pay child support. On appeal, Father argued that he did not willfully disobey the support order and that the purge plan set forth in the contempt order was impossible to perform, making it punitive rather than a coercive sanction. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Father was in contempt; and (2) the contempt order did not impermissibly impose a criminal or punitive sanction in a civil proceeding because it was not impossible to comply with the order. View "State ex rel. Maria B. v. Kyle B." on Justia Law

Margaret and Hannah lived together in a romantic relationship in Nebraska. They moved to Texas, in 2003 where they legally changed their last names to “Whilde.” In 2010, Hannah gave birth to a baby, conceived by artificial insemination. Margaret did not adopt the child. In 2011, Hannah returned to Otoe with the baby. Ultimately, a Nebraska court determined that Nebraska law applied but considered the effect of a Texas court’s temporary order granting Margaret rights, and concluded that an in loco parentis relationship “at one time did exist” between Margaret and the child but had ceased after Margaret returned to Texas. The court awarded sole custody to Hannah. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. Margaret later sought to vacate an order changing the child’s name to Hannah's family name. She argued that she was entitled to notice by certified mail as a “noncustodial parent” under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-21,271(2) and had not received such notice. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed rejection of Margaret’s motion. The order extinguishing Margaret’s rights was effective at all relevant times: when Hannah filed the name change petition, when she published notice, when the petition was considered and granted by the district court, and when Margaret filed her motion to vacate the name change order. View "In re Change of Name of Whilde" on Justia Law

Margaret and Hannah lived together in a romantic relationship in Lincoln, Nebraska. They moved to Austin, Texas, in 2003. In 2010, Hannah gave birth to a baby, conceived by artificial insemination. Margaret did not adopt the child. The relationship declined. In 2011, Hannah returned to Otoe with the baby. A Texas court entered a temporary order, finding that Margaret had legal standing to assert rights with respect to the child and setting forth certain rights and duties that the women would share. In 2014, Hannah sought to register the Texas order (Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1226) and requested that the Nebraska court set aside the Texas order and modify custody. Margaret was living in Nebraska. No effort had been taken to obtain entry of a final order in Texas. Margaret returned to Texas. Her contact with the child was minimal thereafter, Hannah moved to suspend Margaret’s contact with the child because of Margaret’s mental health issues. The Nebraska court preliminarily ordered that there be no contact. The Texas court relinquished its jurisdiction. The Nebraska court determined that Nebraska law applied but considered the effect of the Texas court’s determination and concluded that an in loco parentis relationship “at one time did exist” between Margaret and the child but had ceased after Margaret returned to Texas. The court awarded sole custody to Hannah. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, stating that in loco parentis status is transitory and may be lost. View "Whilde v. Whilde" on Justia Law