State of Nebraska on behalf of Marcelo K. AND RYCKI K., MINOR CHILDREN, APPELLANT.
Ricky K. and Belinda D., appellees.
Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A
jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual
dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of
___. 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.
Actions: Parties: Final Orders: Appeal and
Error. One may bring an appeal pursuant to Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 25-1315 (Reissue 2016) only when (1) multiple
causes of action or multiple parties are present, (2) the
court enters a "final order" within the meaning of
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2016) as to one or
more but fewer than all of the causes of action or parties,
and (3) the trial court expressly directs the entry of such
final order and expressly determines that there is no just
reason for delay of an immediate appeal.
Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. An appellate
court and the tribunal appealed from do not have jurisdiction
over the same case at the same time.
from the District Court for Douglas County: Marlon A. Polk,
Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Theodore P. Arndt, Authorized Attorney for the State of
Nebraska, for appellant.
T. Head, of Law Offices of Willow T. Head, PC, L.L.O., for
appellee Ricky K.
Neb. 180] Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy,
Funke, and Papik, JJ., and Daugherty, District Judge.
State of Nebraska initiated a proceeding to establish support
for two children, based upon notarized acknowledgments of
paternity. Ultimately, the pleadings framed multiple claims.
After the district court entered an order disestablishing
paternity of one child and taking no action on the other
claims, the State purported to appeal. Because our
statutegoverning multiple parties and multiple
claims dictates that the order was not final or appealable,
we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
State brought an action against Ricky K., the acknowledged
father of Marcelo K. and Rycki K., to establish child support
for the two minor children. Belinda D., the mother of the
minor children, was joined in the initial complaint, which
styled her as a "Third Party Defendant."
filed an amended answer and counterclaim and cross-claim
(styled as a cross-complaint, despite seeking relief against
both the State and Belinda) in which he alleged that he was
not the biological father of Marcelo, that Belinda
fraudulently coerced him into signing the minor child's
birth certificate, and that there was a material mistake of
fact and fraud based on her representations. For these
reasons, he sought a disestablishment of paternity as to
Marcelo. As to Rycki, Ricky admitted he was Rycki's
biological father and sought joint legal and physical custody
of the minor child. The counterclaim and cross-claim set
forth two "causes of action" separately raising
Ricky's claims regarding Marcelo and Rycki, respectively.
Neb. 181] The district court did not officially bifurcate the
matter, but the issues pertaining to the disestablishment of
paternity of Marcelo, including appointment of a guardian ad
litem, were referred to the district court referee. After
genetic testing was done, but before hearing on the
disestablishment issue, the referee appointed a guardian ad
an evidentiary hearing on disestablishment, the referee found
that the genetic testing excluded Ricky from being
Marcelo's biological father. However, because the referee
determined that both Ricky and Belinda signed the
acknowledgment of paternity knowing that Ricky was not
Marcelo's biological father, it concluded that the
evidence was insufficient to satisfy the required showing of
fraud, material mistake of fact, or duress. Consequently, the
referee determined that Ricky had failed to meet his burden
of proof and recommended denying disestablishment.
filed exceptions to the referee's report and requested
that the issue be considered by the district court. After a
hearing, the district court sustained the exception to the
referee's recommendations and rejected its analysis and
conclusion. The court made independent findings and concluded
that the statutory requirements to ...