CourtListener opinion 1788072

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

267 Neb. 934 
 JUDY LOUISE HOSACK, APPELLEE, 
v. 
MAX GALEN HOSACK, APPELLANT. 
 No. S-02-1405. 
 Supreme Court of Nebraska. 
 Filed May 7, 2004. 
 Paul M. Conley for appellant. 
 James H. Hoppe and Timothy W. Curtis for appellee. 
 HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ. 
 WRIGHT, J. 
 
 NATURE OF CASE 
 In a petition for further review, Max Galen Hosack asserted that the Nebraska Court of Appeals erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review a judgment of the Saunders County District Court. We granted Max's petition for further review. 
 
 SCOPE OF REVIEW 
 [1] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it. Cerny v. Longley, 266 Neb. 26, 661 N.W.2d 696 (2003). 
 [2] In actions for dissolution of marriage, an appellate court reviews the case de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, 263 Neb. 27, 637 N.W.2d 898 (2002). 
 [3] A judicial abuse of discretion exists when a judge, within the effective limits of authorized judicial power, elects to act or refrain from action, but the selected option results in a decision which is untenable and unfairly deprives a litigant of a substantial right or a just result in matters submitted for disposition through a judicial system. Gase v. Gase, 266 Neb. 975, 671 N.W.2d 223 (2003). 
 
 FACTS 
 On February 12, 2002, Judy Louise Hosack filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Max. On October 15, the district court signed and the clerk of the district court filed a journal entry which stated: 
 Having considered all matters properly before it, the court now finds, concludes and rules as follows: 
 1. Dissolution. The marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken and the dissolution sought herein should be granted. 
 2. Property Division. The parties have reached a division of the marital estate and have divided their property in accordance with that division agreement. The court approves the property settlement . . . . 
 3. Retirement Funds. Each of the parties has a retirement account . . . . The court finds that each party is entitled to one half of the retirement of the other . . . . The court requires that counsel provide a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] to be made a part of the decree to be drafted herein. 
 8. Alimony. . . . 
 . . . . 
 In this case, the parties have been married for 31 years. [Judy] is presently in her mid-fifties and worked at various times throughout the marriage, but mostly at minimum wage employment. . . . During the marriage, she raised the couple's three children. There is a significant disparity in the earning capacity of the parties. 
 . . . [Max] should pay alimony to [Judy] until she reaches age 62 in the monthly amount of $575.00. 
 9. Miscellaneous Matters. 1) [Judy] can retrieve her belongings from [Max's home] by giving him at least 48 hours telephone notice. 2) [Max] shall continue health insurance coverage for [Judy] for 6 months after the entry of the decree. 3) [Judy] is awarded $750.00 towards [sic] her attorney's fees, to be paid by [Max] no later than December 30, 2002. 
 10. Motion. Counsel shall advise the court, by written motion, if the court failed to rule on any material issue presented. If no motion is filed within 10 days from the date of this order, all matters not specifically ruled upon are deemed denied. 
 11. Decree. [Judy's counsel] shall prepare the decree and provide it to [Max's counsel] for review no later than October 31, 2002. The decree shall be presented to the Court for signature no later than November 15, 2002. 
 A decree was signed by the district court on November 14, 2002, and it was filed by the clerk of the district court. The decree provided that Max was awarded the residence in Exeter, Nebraska, subject to any liens and encumbrances thereon. It stated that the court approved the division of property, finding it fair, reasonable, and not unconscionable. Each party was awarded that property currently in his or her possession, including any vehicles subject to existing liens. Each party was directed to pay any debts in his or her individual name and to hold the other harmless for the payment thereof. Fifty percent of Judy's retirement benefits at Square D and 50 percent of Max's retirement benefits at Kawasaki were awarded to each party. The court retained jurisdiction to enter any necessary qualified domestic relations orders to effectuate the division of the retirement benefits of the parties. The decree awarded Judy attorney fees of $750 to be paid by Max no later than December 30. It directed that Max pay alimony to Judy in the amount of $575 per month commencing on November 1, 2002, and terminating when Judy reaches the age of 62. The decree also stated that alimony would terminate upon the death of either party or Judy's remarriage. Max was directed to maintain Judy on his health insurance program through Kawasaki for 6 months from and after the date of the court's decree. The decree also stated: \To the extent there is any conflict between this Decree and any attachment or other document incorporated herein by reference