Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred sufficient to warrant modification of Appellee's alimony obligation, holding that there was no error.When the parties divorced, Appellee was earning $162,000 per year. Appellee was earning $200,000 per year when he was terminated. After the loss of his employment and the subsequent starting of his consulting firm, Appellee filed a motion for modification of his alimony obligation, also citing Appellant's increased income. The district court found a material change in circumstances and entered a new alimony schedule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "Mackiewicz v. Mackiewicz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint seeking dissolution of her marriage to Defendant, holding that the district court erred by dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.In his motion to dismiss, Defendant asserted that the parties were legally divorced in Venezuela, and therefore, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution action under Rule 12(b)(1) and lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant under Rule 12(b)(2). The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution action because the complaint's allegations sufficiently established the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the marital relationship; and (2) the district court erred to the extent it relied on its equitable estoppel findings to support dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Bleich v. Bleich" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court granting a change of placement for Jordon B., holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.The juvenile court granted temporary custody of Jordon to Foster Parents based on concerns that Mother and Father were not able to care for him. After the court adjudicated Jordon to be a child within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) the court approved a case plan with a primary permanency plan of reunification. Mother subsequently filed a motion for change of placement. Foster Parents filed a motion to intervene, as did Stepbrother, the adult stepbrother to Jordon. The court determined that Foster Parents and Stepbrother lacked standing to intervene. The court subsequently granted Mother's motion for a change of placement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Foster Parents did not have standing to appeal the placement order or the right to intervene as parties; and (2) because Stepbrother was not a "sibling" to Jordon, his request to intervene was properly denied. View "In re Jordon B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's tort action against the State of Nebraska, the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and its director, and the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP), holding that the State had not waived its its sovereign immunity with respect to Plaintiff's claim.Plaintiff filed this negligence action alleging "Negligent Disclosure and Review of Sealed Records" alleging that NSP negligently disclosed Plaintiff's sealed criminal history records to DCS in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3523. The district court dismissed the complaint, in its entirety, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to allege a tort claim as that term is defined in the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,209 to 81-8,235; and (2) therefore, the State did not waive its sovereign immunity with respect to Plaintiff's claim. View "Doe v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and in part reversed and remanded the judgment of the district court finding that Appellant was in contempt of court of orders contained in a divorce decree from Appellee, holding that the court erred in several respects.The district court found that for the tax years 2014 and 2019 Appellant willful violated the dependency tax exemption provisions of her marital dissolution decree and the order in modification. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the order finding Appellant in contempt for taking tax exemptions for the 2014 tax year but affirmed with respect to her filing for 2019, holding that Appellant was not in contempt of the decree when she took a dependency tax exemption for 2014; (2) vacated the award to Appellee for tax year 2014, holding that Appellee he was not harmed in 2014; (3) vacated the damages awarded to Appellee for a lost coronavirus relief payment for the 2019 tax year for lack of proof; and (4) reversed the award of attorney fees to Appellee. View "Yochum v. Yochum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals concluding that an order of partial summary judgment entered in the underlying proceeding to modify custody and child support was immediately appealable as a final order in a special proceeding under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1902(1)(b), holding that Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1315(1) was implicated but was not satisfied.Plaintiff filed a complaint to modify his child support obligation and certain provisions of the parties' parenting plan. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that the Nebraska court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the child at issue when the dissolution decree was entered. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant and voided every provision in the decree and parenting plan related to the child. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' decision, holding that section 25-1315(1) was implicated in this case, and there was no proper certification under that statute. View "Mann v. Mann" on Justia Law

In this dissolution action governed bay a premarital agreement the Supreme Court affirmed the decree in all respects with the exception of the court's itemization of a truck as part of the marital estate, which the court vacated, holding that there was largely no error in the proceedings below.The district court imposed a constructive trust over certain limited liability companies titled solely in Wife's name so that, under the agreement, they were considered additions to the marital estate. On appeal, Husband argued, among other things, the court abused its discretion in allowing Wife to amend her pleadings to include the issue of the constructive trust and that the evidence did not support the constructive trust. The Supreme Court largely affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the court's imposition of a constructive trust; (2) the truck owned at the time of filing should not have been calculated as part of the marital estate; and (3) Husband's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "Simons v. Simons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court dismissing Appellant's petition for appointment of a guardian over her daughter, Appellee, holding that the county court did not err in excluding a report created by the guardian ad litem (GAL) from evidence.After Appellee was arrested and detained Appellant petitioned to have the Office of the Public Guardian appointed as guardian over Appellee. The GAL then filed its report regarding Appellee's medical history. After a trial, the county court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss, ruling that Appellant had failed to make a prima facie case for appointment of a permanent guardian. View "In re Guardianship of Jill G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals summarily dismissing Appellant's appeal from the order of the district court that dismissed her amended complaint for grandparent visitation, holding that the court of appeals erred when it dismissed the appeal rather than reversing the district court's dismissal and remanding the cause with directions.The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint with prejudice after it determined that it lacked jurisdiction because the minor child's father had not been given notice of the proceedings. The court of appeals summarily dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-323 required the district court order that the father, as an indispensable party, be brought into the action before it dismissed the action for lack of an indispensable party; and (2) the court of appeals erred by endorsing this dismissal. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's petition to establish grandparent visitation with her minor grandchildren for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the district court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction.The biological grandmother of the children at issue in this case, filed a petition to establish grandparent visitation with her minor grandchildren. The parents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition because allowing the grandmother visitation would infringe on the parents' fundamental liberty interest in raising their children. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the district court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. View "Kane v. Kane" on Justia Law