Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court finding that the divorce decree in this case required Father to pay for his daughter's college education and automobile, holding that there was no merit to Father's arguments on appeal.In this contempt proceeding, the district court concluded that the decree clearly required Father to pay the automobile expenses and ordered him to provide Mother with documentation of the college savings account for his daughter. On appeal, Father argued that the district court order was punitive and thus wrong entered in a civil contempt proceeding, and that the district court should have found that he was not obligated to pay for the college and car expenses because his daughter had repudiated her relationship with him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in rejecting Father's arguments and requiring that he pay his daughter's college and automobile expenses. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint to modify the parties' divorce decree and parenting plan with the ultimate objective of allowing her to move with the parties' children to Nebraska, holding that the district court correctly determined that proper jurisdiction of the issue is with Arizona.After the decree and parenting plan were entered, the district court entered an order modifying the parenting plan to permit the parties to move from Nebraska to Arizona. After the parties and the children moved to Arizona Appellant filed the current complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint to modify, determining that it lacked continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the child custody determination and that proper jurisdiction of the current issue is with Arizona. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's jurisdictional ruling was proper and that Appellant's assignments of error were without merit. View "Hogan v. Hogan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court denying Father's motion to modify parenting time, holding that the district court abused its discretion.At issue was the interpretation of a provision in the parties' custody agreement incorporated into the divorce decree stating that if a dispute over modification were submitted to a court, the court would apply the "then-governing legal standard." In denying Father's motion, the district court concluded that although more parenting time with Father would be in the child's best interests, Father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case, holding (1) the agreement incorporated into the decree did not purport to set forth the legal standard under which a court could adjudicate a complaint to modify; and (2) there was a material change in circumstances. View "Weaver v. Weaver" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed an order of modification, holding that Appellant was not entitled to assign error to a consent judgment that reflected her negotiated agreement and that was entered at her request.In 2010, the parties' marriage was dissolved by the district court. Appellant was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two minor children, and Appellee was ordered to pay monthly child support. The decree was subsequently modified to approve a downward deviation in Appellee's child support. In 2016, the district court entered a stipulated order of modification approving the parties' agreement to increase the amount of Appellee's monthly child support obligation but continuing the existing downward deviation. In 2019, Appellant filed the current complaint to modify requesting that the downward deviation in child support be eliminated. The court entered an order of modification reflecting an agreement of the parties. Appellant appealed, arguing that the court erred in determining that Appellee was still entitled to a downward deviation in his child support obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the order of modification approved the parties' agreement on the disputed issues it was, in all respects, a consent judgment entered at the request of the parties, and therefore, Appellant could not complain of error on appeal. View "Mahlendorf v. Mahlendorf" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's order denying Timothy Grothen's application for modification of his alimony obligation in the decree dissolving his marriage to Martha Grothen, holding that the court of appeals reached the correct result when it affirmed the denial of modification of alimony.In affirming the district court's order denying modification, the court of appeals concluded that because the original alimony award was agreed upon by the parties as part of a property settlement agreement, the alimony provision could not be modified in the absence of gross inequity or fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly used the "good cause" standard set out in Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-365 and correctly determined that, under that standard, modification was not appropriate; and (2) the court of appeals erroneously review the district court's decision under a gross inequity standard but nevertheless reached the correct result when it affirmed the denial of modification of alimony. View "Grothen v. Grothen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Grandfather's intervention, as a person standing in loco parentis, in a custody proceeding brought by Mother against Father, holding that the district court erred in ruling that Grandfather did not stand in loco parentis and in denying the complaint in intervention.The district court concluded that any in loco parentis status had been extinguished by virtue of a child support order issued more than one year earlier, as well as through temporary custody orders placing the child with a parent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) rather than making factual findings, the district court should have determined the matter of intervention on the pleadings; and (2) based on the allegations of the pleadings, Grandfather had a right to intervene. View "Carroll v. Gould" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court transferring sole legal and physical custody over C.J. to Duke Jaeger, subject to Stacey Jaeger's parenting time, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by moving C.J. to Duke's sole legal and physical custody; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Stacy's testimony about previous abuse allegations; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Stacey's motion for a new trial. View "Jaeger v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court ordering Timothy Weiland to pay Ann Weiland a fixed award of $465 per month for military pension benefits and to pay Ann her share of Timothy's retirement benefits had had received and not paid to Ann, holding that the district court erred when it assigned a fixed monthly dollar value.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that under the parties' divorce decree, the district court erred when it assigned a fixed monthly dollar value to Ann's interest in Timothy's military retirement benefits. Ann was entitled to an award of military pension benefits and back payments, but the fixed monthly benefit award and the fixed monthly amount of back payments was vacated. The Court reversed and remanded with directions to determine the equitable distribution of Timothy's military retirement expressed as a formula that adheres to the points awarded in the decree and consistent with a hypothetical retirement date as of the date of the decree. View "Weiland v. Weiland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying several provisions of a judgment establishing custody, visitation, and support of minor children based on the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis, holding that the correct modification standard was applied.In its order, the district court found a material change in circumstances and modified several provisions pertaining to the support of the minor children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) judgments establishing in loco parentis rights regarding the custody, visitation, and support of a minor child ordinarily will not be modified absent a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the child, but whether the in loco parentis relationship has changed is relevant to determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances and whether modification is in the child's best interests; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a material change in circumstances justified modifying support-related provisions concerning the minor children. View "Windham v. Kroll" on Justia Law

In case No. S-20-009, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the juvenile court denying Father's motion for placement, and in case No. S-20-244, affirmed the order of adjudication of the child over Father's objection, holding that the juvenile court erred in finding Father unfit and in denying his parental preference for physical custody.The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services was given temporary custody of the child and placed him in temporary foster care. After Father became aware that the child was in foster care he moved for temporary physical placement. The juvenile court denied the motion and proceeded with adjudication of the child. In case No. S-20-009, Father appealed the denial of his motion for placement. In case No. S-20-244, Father argued that his appeal in case No. S-20-009 divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction to issue the adjudication. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the order denying Father's motion for placement, holding that because Father was not given notice that his fitness or forfeiture were to be adjudicated at the hearing on his motion for placement, the juvenile court could not properly deprive him of his right to custody under the parental preference doctrine; and (2) affirmed the order of adjudication in case No. S-20-244, holding that the order of adjudication was not void. View "In re Interest of A.A." on Justia Law