Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Neb. Ct. App. 572

657 N.W.2d 25

Moore v. Bauer

Nebraska Court of Appeals

Decided February 25, 2003

This page is marked noindex.

Nebraska Court of Appeals · decided 2003-02-25

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2023

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[i]n my judgment, an attorney who appeals a dissolution decree or a decree on modification of child support when the trial court has not adopted the proper worksheets is remiss in his or her duty to the client if such appeal is filed without first attempting to get the trial court to correct its obviously erroneous decree”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Rutherford v. Rutherford

“avoid an expensive and time-consuming remand from the appellate court for preparation of child support worksheets.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 17 Neb. Ct. App. 750 - Jones v. Belgum

Applies NE 25 § 25-1329 · NE 25 § 25-1912

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-02-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Sievers, Judge,

¶1concurring.

¶2While I completely agree with the majority opinion, some further comment on the matter of the all too frequent failure of trial *581courts to follow the requirement that child support worksheets be prepared and adopted by the court is appropriate.

¶3This court and the Nebraska Supreme Court have repeatedly emphasized the requirement that worksheets be prepared. This court has repeatedly remanded cases (not all of which were published cases) for the failure to prepare worksheets, to the point that no citation of authority is required. The reality of this situation is that mothers and fathers are being penalized because of the obvious cost and delay associated with the preparation of an appellate record, appellate briefs, and oral argument which results in nothing more than a remand.

¶4While it is unquestionably the duty of the trial judge under the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines to prepare the worksheets in compliance with the pronouncements of the Nebraska Supreme Court and this court, I believe we have reached the point where counsel must respond to the published appellate decisions on the matter. In my judgment, an attorney who appeals a dissolution decree or a decree on modification of child support when the trial court has not adopted the proper worksheets is remiss in his or her duty to the client if such appeal is filed without first attempting to get the trial court to correct its obviously erroneous decree. A motion to amend or alter a judgment pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1329 (Cum. Supp. 2002), which stops the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(3) (Cum. Supp. 2002), seems to be the perfect vehicle.

¶5In short, previous pronouncements of the appellate courts on this subject should be well known by all attorneys practicing domestic relations law. The filing of an appeal when proper worksheets have not been adopted by the trial court, without utilizing the procedures suggested above prior to filing the appeal, is largely a waste of time and money. And, while counsel can rightly fault the trial court when explaining our remand to the client, in my view, counsel must now shoulder some responsibility for pursuing an appeal from an obviously faulty decree when there exists a procedure to avoid an expensive and time-consuming remand from the appellate court for preparation of child support worksheets.

/11/nebctapp/572 · .json · Public domain