Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Source: Laws 1972, LB 820, § 5; Laws 1984, LB 276, § 1; Laws 1991, LB 732, § 100; Laws 1992, LB
360, § 10; Laws 1996, LB 1296, § 11; Laws 1997, LB 229, § 11; Laws 2002, LB 876, § 73; Laws 2003,
LB 148, § 42; Laws 2007, LB554, § 29. Operative date January 1,
2008
§42-705 Basis for jurisdiction over nonresident.
(a) In a proceeding to establish or enforce a support order or to
determine parentage, a tribunal of this state may exercise
personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual or the
individual’s guardian or conservator if:
(1) The individual is personally served with notice within this
state;
(2) The individual submits to the jurisdiction of this state by
consent, by entering a general appearance, or by filing a responsive document having the effect
of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction;
(3) The individual resided with the child in this state;
(4) The individual resided in this state and provided prenatal expenses or support for the child;
(5) The child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the individual;
(6) The individual engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been
conceived by that act of intercourse;
(7) The individual asserted parentage in this state pursuant to section 43-104.02, 71-628, 71-
640.01, or 71-640.02 with the Department of Health and Human Services Finance and Support;
or
(8) There is any other basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States
for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
(b) The basis of personal jurisdiction set forth in subsection (a) of this section or in any other law
of this state shall not be used to acquire personal jurisdiction for a tribunal of this state to modify
a child support order of another state unless the requirements of section 42-746 or 42-747.03 are
met.
Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 5; Laws 1996, LB 1044, § 101; Laws 2003, LB 148, § 46.
Bayliss v. Bayliss, 8 Neb. App. 269, 592 N.W.2d 165 (1999)
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Generally, once an appeal has been perfected, the trial
court has no jurisdiction to determine any issues regarding the subject matter of the
litigation.
(District court could not entertain an application to modify child support filed while a
previous modification of child support was on appeal. It could still address issues
such as visitation that were not subject of the appeal.)
Currie v. Chief School Bus Serv., 250 Neb. 872, 553 N.W.2d 469 (1996),
Although an extrajurisdictional act of a lower court cannot vest an appellate court
with jurisdiction to review the merits of an appeal, the appellate court has jurisdiction
and, moreover, the duty to determine whether the lower court had the power, that is,
the subject matter jurisdiction, to enter the judgment or other final order sought to be
reviewed.
Davis v. Choctaw Constr., 280 Neb. 714,789 N.W.2d 698 (Oct. 2010)
Judgment entered for employee in contract dispute. Employer appeals, and for the first time on
appeal raises issue of court jurisdiction, because there was no service within 6 months of the filing of
- 113 -