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.
Jurisdiction: Time: Notice: Appeal and
Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912 (Reissue
2016), to vest an appellate court with jurisdiction, a party
must timely file a notice of appeal.
Motions to Vacate: Judgments: Time. In the
absence of an applicable rule to the contrary, a motion
asking the court to exercise its inherent power to vacate or
modify its own judgment does not terminate the time for
taking an appeal.
Motions to Vacate: Final Orders: Time: Notice: Appeal
and Error. A party can move a court to vacate or
modify a final order, but if the court does not grant the
motion, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of
the entry of the earlier final order if the party intends to
Pleadings: Judgments: Time: Appeal and
Error. Filing a timely motion to alter or amend a
judgment terminates the time in which a notice of appeal must
Pleadings: Judgments: Time. In order to
qualify for treatment as a motion to alter or amend a
judgment, a motion must be filed no later than 10 days after
the entry of judgment, as required under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 25-1329 (Reissue 2016), and must seek substantive
alteration of the judgment.
Pleadings: Judgments: Time: Appeal and
Error. A timely motion to alter or amend a judgment
terminates the time to file an appeal, and the [302 Neb. 146]
full 30-day period to appeal begins to run from the entry of
the order ruling upon the motion to alter or amend a
__:__:__. An untimely motion to alter or amend a judgment
does not terminate the time for perfection of an appeal and
does not extend or suspend the time limit for filing a notice
from the District Court for Sarpy County: Stefanie A.
Martinez, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
C. Wegner, of Husker Law, for appellant.
Heather L. Horst, of Walz Law Offices, P.C., L.L.O., for
L. Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
appeal turns upon a jurisdictional issue. Approximately 10
months after a marital dissolution decree was entered
adjudicating paternity of a child, David B. sought to
intervene and disestablish paternity. The district court
entered a final order denying intervention. David then filed
two motions to reconsider, one within 10 days of the final
order, and after it was denied because it lacked a notice of
hearing, he filed a second motion 11 days after the final
order. Because David did not appeal within 30 days after the
denial of his first motion to reconsider, which was properly
construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, we lack
jurisdiction of this appeal. The second motion, which was
untimely as a motion to alter or amend, did not terminate or
extend the time for appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
3 months after Izabella L. married Bryson L., she gave birth
to a child. In November 2016, the district court approved the
parties' property settlement agreement and dissolved the
2-year marriage. The decree awarded Bryson sole [302 Neb.
147] physical custody of the child and ordered that neither
party shall pay child support due to Izabella's
unemployment and limited income.
September 2017, David filed a motion to intervene in the
dissolution case as an interested party. David alleged that
when Izabella was pregnant and engaged to marry Bryson, she
"indicated to [David] that he could be the father of the
minor child." In light of Izabella's divorce, David
obtained genetic testing. The test results, obtained in
August, showed David's probability of paternity to be
99.999 percent. Thus, David sought to be included in the
dissolution case in order to disestablish Bryson's
custodial rights to the child under Neb. Rev. Stat. §
43-1412.01 (Reissue 2016). In October, David ...