Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

After being married for approximately twenty years, Shelley and Kirk Brozek divorced. The divorce decree divided the marital estate and ordered Kirk to buy some of Shelley’s separate property. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree and the court’s order awarding Shelley attorney fees, holding that the district court did not err in (1) ordering Kirk to buy Shelley’s shares in a closely held farming corporation for a price higher than the value determined under a stock redemption agreement; (2) dividing the marital estate and declining to give Kirk credit for premarital property he disposed of during the marriage; (3) awarding Shelley attorney fees after Kirk filed a notice of appeal; and (4) not awarding Shelley alimony, a cash award for the inadequacy of the marital estate, or attorney fees in the decree. View "Brozek v. Brozek" on Justia Law

After Eric Zornes won a lottery, Eric and his wife, Julia, commenced a gifting plan to Andy Wolfe, Jason Wolfe, and Jason Reed. These gifts were structured as loans, and each borrower made a promissory note for his loan, payable to Julia’s and Eric’s revocable trusts jointly. Andy’s note was secured by a deed of trust for real property. Julia and Eric later divorced pursuant to a settlement agreement. When Eric found that Andy’s house had been sold and that Julia had retained the proceeds of the sale, Eric filed this complaint alleging that Julia had converted the proceeds of Andy’s note. Julia counterclaimed for partition of the Jason Wolfe and Jason Reed notes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Julia, concluding that even if Julia had converted the proceeds, the settlement agreement operated as an accord and satisfaction. The court also ordered partition of the promissory notes for Jason Wolfe’s and Jason Reed’s loans. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Eric was not entitled to summary judgment on his conversion claim; (2) the settlement agreement did not constitute an accord and satisfaction; and (3) the lower court erred in the method by which it partitioned the Jason Wolfe and Jason Reed notes. View "Zornes v. Zornes" on Justia Law

Damian and Tiffany, who were never married, had a child together, Jakai, born in 2009. In 2011, the district court filed a decree awarding joint legal custody to the parties and awarded primary physical custody to Tiffany. The decree also incorporated a previous order requiring Damian to pay child support. Damian subsequently filed a complaint to modify the decree, requesting that he be granted sole legal and physical custody and seeking an order requiring Tiffany to pay child support. Tiffany filed a cross-complaint seeking an increase in Damian’s child support obligation. After a modification hearing, the district court denied a change of custody and increased Damian’s child support obligation. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a modification of custody was not warranted and adjusted child support. View "State ex rel. Jakai C. v. Tiffany M." on Justia Law

The juvenile court determined that it had jurisdiction over Child, an infant, because of the faults and habits of Mother. The court gave the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services temporary custody of Child. The Department subsequently placed Child with Foster Parents. Foster Parents filed a complaint to intervene to object to any placement change. Mother subsequently moved to place Child with Aunt, who did not live in Nebraska. The court dismissed Foster Parents’ complaint to intervene and approved Aunt for placement. Foster Parents appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Foster Parents lacked standing to appeal the order changing Child’s placement; and (2) Foster Parents were not entitled to intervene as of right, and the juvenile court lacked the power to allow them to equitably intervene. View "In re Interest of Enyce J." on Justia Law

The State petitioned to remove Mother’s two daughters, age fourteen and age eleven, from Mother’s home and to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the girls. The juvenile court found that the children came within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 435-292(1) (abandonment) and (9) (aggravated circumstances) insofar as Mother was concerned, but the court also found that termination of Mother’s parental rights to the two girls was not in the girls’ best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not commit plain error in finding that there was not clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Interest of Justine J." on Justia Law

The State filed an amended petition seeking termination of Mother’s parental rights to her three minor children, alleging the children were within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292(2) because Mother had substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected and refused to give necessary parental care and protection. The juvenile court ordered the children to remain in the temporary custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, finding that the State had failed to present a prima facie case that termination of Mother’s parental rights was appropriate under section 43-292(2). The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Mother’s noncompliance with voluntary State-offered services was not acceptable evidence to be used to satisfy the requirements of section 43-292(2). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State made at least a prima facie case that the requirements of section 43-292(2) were met due to Mother’s history of drug use and improper supervision. Remanded. View "In re Interest of Joseph S." on Justia Law

In 2009, Bonnie Nichols and Margie Nichols were married in Iowa. In 2012, Bonnie filed a complaint in a Nebraska court to dissolve the union. Margie filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that a Nebraska court lacked jurisdiction to dissolve a same-sex marriage. The district court granted Margie’s motion to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction. The district court’s order purported to dismiss Bonnie’s complaint if Bonnie failed to amend it within fifteen days. Bonnie did not file an amended complaint, and the district court did not enter a judgment dismissing the action. Bonnie appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Bonnie appealed from a conditional order and not a final judgment, and therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Nichols v. Nichols" on Justia Law

After mother remarried, she petitioned for the termination of Father’s parental rights to the parties’ minor child. The county court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights, concluding that termination was in the child’s best interests and that one of more of the grounds in Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292 existed in support of termination. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err by (1) not addressing the county court’s failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for Father; and (2) finding the evidence sufficient to terminate Father’s parental rights under section 43-292. View "Wayne G. v. Jacqueline W." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the biological parents of Son and had joint legal custody of Son. Since his birth, Son lived primarily with Mother. In 2001, Mother married Stepfather. In 2013, Father filed a complaint to modify, seeking sole custody of Son. In his complaint, Father alleged there had been a material change in circumstance because Stepfather had been deported to Mexico and Mother wished to join him in Mexico with Son. Mother filed a countercomplaint seeking to permanently remove Son to Mexico. The district court granted summary judgment for Father on Mother’s countercomplaint, finding that Mother’s reason for removal was not legitimate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in determining that Mother’s desire to live with Stepfather in Mexico was not a legitimate reason for removal as a matter of law. Remanded. View "Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had a son while they were married. Mother filed for divorce, and a decree and parenting plan awarded sole primary and legal custody to Mother. Father was awarded visitation and ordered to pay $500 per month in child support. Father later filed a second amended application for modification, alleging a material change in circumstances for various reasons, including his unemployment and his relocation to Kansas. Following a trial, the district court found a material change in circumstances, made changes to the parties’ parenting time, and reduced Father’s child support obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) its order regarding visitation transportation; (2) reducing and in calculating Father’s child support obligation; and (3) awarding Mother attorney fees. View "Garza v. Garza" on Justia Law