04.04.2014 Views

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

proceeding, or upon a summary application in an action after judgment, is a final order which<br />

may be vacated, modified or reversed, as provided in this chapter.<br />

Source: R.S.1867, Code § 581, p. 496; R.S.1913, § 8176; C.S.1922, § 9128; C.S.1929, § 20-1902.<br />

In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Bowman, 12 Neb. App. 891, 686 N.W.2d 642<br />

(2004)<br />

Trial courts are without authority to reopen their files and enter orders “interpreting”<br />

or “clarifying” prior orders after the time for a proper appeal has passed.<br />

“neither what the parties thought the judge meant nor what the judge thought he or<br />

she meant, after time for appeal has passed, is of any relevance” and that “[w]hat<br />

the decree, as it became final, means as a matter of law as determined from the four<br />

corners of the decree is what is relevant.” Citing Neujahr v. Neujahr, 223 Neb. 722,<br />

728, 393 N.W.2d 47, 51 (1986). See also Bhuller v. Bhuller, 17 Neb. App. 607, 767<br />

N.W.2d 813 (2009), Pearson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Milling Co., 282 Neb.<br />

400, 803 N.W.2d 489 (2011)<br />

I.P. Homeowners v. Morrow, 12 Neb. App. 119, 668 N.W.2d 515 (2003)<br />

A judgment must respond to the pleadings. A judgment based upon an issue not<br />

pled is a nullity.<br />

Neujahr v. Neujahr, 223 Neb. 722, 393 N.W.2d 47 (1986)<br />

Trial courts cannot later be asked to reinterpret or clarify their orders, even if both sides want<br />

them to.<br />

Litigation must be put to an end, and it is the function of a final judgment to do just<br />

that. A judgment is the final consideration and determination of a court on matters<br />

submitted to it in an action or proceeding. [Citation omitted.] If a judgment can mean<br />

one thing one day and something else on another day, there would be no reason to<br />

suppose that the litigation had been set at rest. The same must be said if the<br />

judgment can mean one thing to one judge and something else to another judge. All<br />

are bound by the original language used, and all ought to interpret the language the<br />

same way. No court should express an opinion of what the judgment means until the<br />

judgment is called into question by some factual situation relating thereto. The judge<br />

who tried the case and who ought to know what he meant to say, after the time for<br />

appeal, etc., has passed cannot any more change or cancel one word of the<br />

judgment than can any other judge. (citing Crofts v. Crofts, 21 Utah 2d 332, 335, 445<br />

P.2d 701, 702-03 (1968))<br />

Neither what the parties thought the judge meant nor what the judge thought he or<br />

she meant, after time for appeal has passed, is of any relevance. What the decree,<br />

as it became final, means as a matter of law as determined from the four corners of<br />

the decree is what is relevant.<br />

§ 24-517 <strong>County</strong> Court: Jurisdiction<br />

Jurisdiction<br />

(See also the Civil Procedure and Related section)<br />

§ 43-247 Juvenile Court: Jurisdiction<br />

…<br />

The juvenile court in each county as herein provided shall have jurisdiction of:<br />

- 110 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!