Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1985, Husband and Wife obtained a certificate of marriage form from the county court and participated in a wedding ceremony officiated by the county judge. In 2012, Husband brought this declaratory judgment action asking the district court to declare that no marriage ever existed because the section of the certificate of marriage form entitled "return of marriage ceremony certificate" was not completed and was never filed with the bureau of vital statistics. The district court found that a valid marriage existed between Husband and Wife and awarded attorney fees to Wife. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that all statutory requirements were met in this case and that the marriage of Husband and Wife was valid. View "Vlach v. Vlach" on Justia Law

In 1996, the district court ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff child support. In 2006, the court issued a writ of execution against Defendant's unspecified property to satisfy the child support lien. However, Defendant had conveyed the property to his girlfriend by quitclaim deed. In 2008, Plaintiff filed a second praecipe for an execution on Defendant's property, seeking an execution sale of the property that Defendant had previously owned and alleging that when the quitclaim conveyances were made, the property was subject to her lien. The court ordered the sheriff to execute on the property, and the sheriff sold the property to Plaintiff. John McWilliams challenged the sale, alleging that when the court issued the writ of execution, he was the record owner, and therefore, the court could not order the sheriff to conduct the execution sale because the property was not titled in Defendant's name. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order confirming the sale, holding that the court lacked authority to order the sheriff to levy the writ on property in which Defendant, the judgment debtor, no longer had an interest, absent any finding that Defendant's transfer of the property was fraudulent. Remanded. View "Fox v . Whitbeck" on Justia Law

After the dissolution of her marriage to Father, Mother sought a modification of child custody and related matters. Father was personally served but defaulted. The district court first entered a default modification order. The court subsequently entered a second order vacating the first order based on the fact that Father was not given notice of the default hearing. Mother appealed, contending that the second order was an abuse of discretion. Father cross-appealed, challenging the first order. The Supreme Court dismissed Father's cross-appeal and affirmed the district court's order vacating the first order, holding (1) because the first order was a final order from which Father did not timely appeal, Father could not use his cross-appeal to attack it; and (2) precedent does not forbid a court from promptly vacating a default modification order for failure to comply with an approved local district court rule requiring notice of the motion for default. View "Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

The marriage of Mother and Father was dissolved by consent decree in 2010. The decree required Father to pay child support and to be responsible for half of the parties' child's extraordinary expenses. Father subsequently became unemployed and filed a petition to modify the decree. Following a hearing, the court reduced Father's child support obligation and responsibility for some expenses and left Father responsible for fifty percent of extraordinary expenses but modified the provision addressing these expenses to require Father to contribute only to the expenses of which he approved. The Supreme Court affirmed the modification of the parties' dissolution decree, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that it had power to modify the extraordinary expenses provision of the parties' divorce decree; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change in circumstances sufficient to reduce Father's child support and childcare contribution percentage; and (3) it was not an abuse of discretion to modify the extraordinary expenses provision to require Father's approval. View "Caniglia v. Caniglia" on Justia Law

Rylee, age sixteen, was nonverbal and autistic. A juvenile petition was filed because Rylee was excessively absent from school. The State placed no fault on Lisa, Rylee's mother. The juvenile court entered an order adjudicating Rylee as a child defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a). As part of the adjudication, Lisa was ordered to complete a pretreatment assessment and to sign releases of information to allow the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) an opportunity to access information from her therapist and treatment providers. Lisa appealed, challenging the reasonableness of the juvenile court's order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the decision of the juvenile court ordering Lisa to submit to a pretreatment assessment and to sign releases of information to allow the DHHS to access her mental health information was unreasonable. Remanded. View "In re Interest of Rylee S." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution that awarded joint legal and physical custody of their minor children. Father subsequently filed an amended complaint to modify the decree, seeking full custody of the children. The district court found in favor of Mother, declined to modify the parenting plan, and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Father's request for modification of custody; and (2) the court did not err when it observed that the issue of modifying the parenting plan was not properly before it. View "Watkins v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Mother and Father entered into a marital settlement agreement in 2007 that provided for joint legal custody of the children and stated that no child support was to be paid. The district court entered an order dissolving the married in 2008, and custody and visitation were ordered as provided in the agreement. Later in 2008, the district court found there had been a material change in circumstances and modified the decree, ordering Father to pay child support for the three children. Mother remarried in 2010. In 2011, Mother filed an application to modify the decree. The district court (1) granted Mother's request to remove the minor children to Alaska and awarded custody of the children to Mother, and (2) terminated Father's child support obligations because of the increased visitation expenses necessitated by the children's move to Alaska. The Supreme Court remanded the case because the district court's order did not include a worksheet showing the methodology utilized by the court in determining that the child support obligation should be terminated. View "Pearson v. Pearson" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were unmarried when Mother became pregnant. The couple's child was born on February 9, 2012, but Father was not told about the birth. Father attempted to contact Mother several times and to gain information about the child but was unsuccessful. On February 23, 2012, five days after the child's original due date, Father filed a "petition to establish necessity of father's consent to adoption" with the county court. The court sustained Mother's motion for summary judgment because Father failed to object to the adoption within five business days after the birth of the child, as required by law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a material fact existed whether Mother was estopped from relying on the five-day filing requirement in Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-104.02 because she intentionally misled Father to prevent him from complying with the requirements of section 43-104.02. Remanded. View "Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D." on Justia Law

Husband filed a complaint for dissolution of marriage from Wife. The couple had three minor children. A deputy county attorney filed the petition in the Douglas County Juvenile Court. The court dismissed the action for lack of prosecution. Husband filed a motion to reinstate. Wife then filed a complaint for dissolution in the Lancaster County District Court. Meanwhile, the Douglas County District Court reinstated the original case. At trial, the Douglas County District Court overruled Wife's motion to dismiss, concluding that its order to reinstate Husband's action related back to the date that Husband had filed the motion. The court also concluded it had jurisdiction over the subject matter despite pending juvenile proceedings involving two of the parties' children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Douglas County District Court had jurisdictional priority over the Lancaster County District Court; and (2) because the parties did not comply with the procedural requirements for transferring a case to juvenile court, the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction. View "Molczyk v. Molczyk" on Justia Law

Upon the dissolution of the parties' marriage, the district court entered an order requiring Husband to pay Wife temporary alimony. While Husband's appeal was pending, Wife filed a motion asking the district court to award her temporary alimony pending the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the district court filed an order awarding Wife temporary alimony. The district court later found Husband to be in contempt for failing to pay temporary alimony and for failing to appear at the contempt hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had jurisdiction to order Husband to pay temporary alimony when the appeal of the decree of dissolution was pending, and therefore the order was not void, and (2) Husband was subject to contempt for violating the order to pay temporary alimony. View "Spady v. Spady" on Justia Law