Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Koch v. Koch, 226 Neb. 305, 312, 411 N.W.2d 319, 323 (1987)
“Indispensable parties to a suit are those who not only have an interest in the
subject matter of the controversy, but also have an interest of such a nature that a
final decree cannot be made without affecting their interests, or leaving the
controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly
inconsistent with equity and good conscience. . . .” Cited in Helter v. Williamson,
239 Neb. 741, 478 N.W.2d 6 (1991)
Meadows v. Meadows, 18 Neb. App. 333, 789 N.W.2d 519 (2010)
Facts: Mom appealed district court ruling that it was “not an inconvenient forum” to hear dad’s
modification action. Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of an appealable order.
§ 25-1902 provides that a party may appeal from a court’s order only if the decision
is a final, appealable order. Under § 25-1902, an order is final for purposes of an
appeal if it affects a substantial right and (1) determines the action and prevents a
judgment, (2) is made during a special proceeding, or (3) is made on summary
application in an action after judgment is rendered.
overruling a motion to decline jurisdiction under § 43-1244 on the ground of
inconvenient forum does not affect a substantial right and is not a final, appealable
order,
Parker v. Parker, 10 Neb. App. 658, 636 N.W.2d 385 (2001)
Helpful hints on styling your court orders. At least one of our judges is a stickler about these
sorts of things. Also note the law generally precludes a trial court from only partially rendering
judgment on the pleadings. Anything less than a final determination of all pending issues is not
an appealable order.
It has long been the rule that a “finding” by a trial court is not a final, appealable
order. An appellate court is without jurisdiction to entertain appeals from nonfinal
orders.
A court order is generally not appealable unless all of the claims of the plaintiff and
intervenor are viewed as adjudicated.
See § 25-1315 (Cum. Supp. 2006) for the express rule governing exceptions to this general rule (it
only applies when there are more than 2 parties OR multiple claims for relief). Trial court orders
not resolving all claims against all parties are always subject to revision at any time before the
entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties, thus,
they are not appealable.
In equity cases trial judges should include at the end of any final order a phrase
to the effect that “any request for relief by any party not specifically granted by this
order is denied.”
We suggest that trial courts discontinue the practice of stating findings and then
ending the journal with the phrase “It is so ordered.” This phrase adds nothing to the
journal, because a finding by a court does not clearly mean the court intends to
award the relief someone might conclude is necessary.
Perkins v. Perkins, 198 Neb. 401, 253 N.W.2d 42 (1977)
A court may make changes in a divorce decree after term of court to cover children
conceived during marriage but born after the divorce.
State v. Barranco, 278 Neb. 165, 769 N.W.2d 343 (2009)
Yeah, you learned this in high school. But some trial judges seem to forget it. Now you can
specifically cite this dicta back to them. Maybe it will help.
- 27 -