Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

obligor to advise the clerk of any changes in such information until the judgment has been fully
paid. If both parents are parties to the action, such order shall provide that each be required to
furnish to the clerk of the court whether he or she has access to employer-related health
insurance coverage and, if so, the health insurance policy information.
(F) A worksheet showing calculations under the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines shall be
attached to every child support application, order, or decree and shall be prepared by the party
requesting child support, except that in a contested matter the worksheet shall be prepared by the
court and attached to the order or decree.
Rule 4(D)(2) and (3) amended April 17, 1996; Rule 4(F) amended January 3, 1997; Rule 4 amended May 19, 2004;
Rule 4(D) deleted and (4)(E)-(G) renumbered to (4)(D)-(F)). Renumbered and codified as § 6-1504, effective July
18, 2008.
Belitz v. Belitz, 17 Neb. App. 53, 756 N.W.2d (2008)
Oh what a tangled web a court weaves, when it seeks to please unpleasant people…
The trial court in a protracted, messy divorce attempted to extend the appeal time for one of
its earlier orders by incorporating terms of the 6 week old order into a later order, then stating
that the new order only became effective 14 days after it was signed. Only the 14 day delay
was disapproved by the Court of Appeals.
This case includes an excellent summary of other similar and dissimilar cases determining
just what constitutes a “final order” for purposes of appeal. See also the Appellate Practice
section of this outline for additional discussion.
There is no more fundamental jurisdictional precept than the doctrine that appeals
can only be taken from final orders.
Citing Huffman v. Huffman, 236 Neb. 101, 459 N.W.2d 215 (1990)…
Generally, when multiple issues are presented to a trial court for simultaneous
disposition in the same proceeding and the court decides some of the issues,
while reserving some issue or issues for later determination, the court’s
determination of less than all the issues is an interlocutory order and is not
a final order for the purpose of an appeal.
The trial’s court attempted 14-day extension of the time in which to appeal was error
as a matter of law and is of no force and effect on the question of whether this court
has appellate jurisdiction.
See also Kilgore v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs. And Wagner v.
Wagner, below.
Conaty v. Boelhower, 218 Neb. 193, 352 N.W.2d 619 (1984)
a personal money judgment could not be supported on the basis of substituted
service.
Hagelstein v. Swift-Eckrich, 257 Neb. 312, 597 N.W.2d 394 (1999).
In re Interest of Tabitha J., 5 Neb. App. 609, 561 N.W.2d 252 (1997)
Evidence presented in a prior related hearing is not the proper subject of judicial
notice. Only adjudicative facts are properly the subject of judicial notice.
Helter v. Williamson, 239 Neb. 741, 478 N.W.2d 6 (1991)
Private paternity action filed by boyfriend of married woman, against woman. Her
husband was not named as a party. This proved fatal to the plaintiff’s efforts to be named dad.
[T]he presumption that children born during the marriage are rebuttably deemed to
be legitimate is a tenet of our common law that perseveres for reasons that are as
sound today as they were in the 18 th century. The presumption prevents nonparents
- 24 -