Cockle v. Cockle

Citations: 339 N.W.2d 63; 215 Neb. 329; 1983 Neb. LEXIS 1277Docket: 82-667

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court; September 23, 1983; Nebraska; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

George Robert Cockle appeals the summary judgment favoring his wife, Mary June Smalley Cockle, which registered a California judgment against him. This case follows a prior appeal (Cockle I) where the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that a 1976 California judgment regarding military retirement pay was not for a specific amount, preventing its registration. Subsequently, the California court determined in November 1980 that $32,419.29 was due under the 1976 judgment. The wife then petitioned the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Court to register this 1980 judgment, serving notice to the husband by U.S. mail.

The California ruling was final, denying the husband’s motion to terminate retirement payments. The husband’s appeal against the 1980 California determination lacked a supersedeas bond, rendering it operative. His primary arguments on appeal included claims of res judicata, invalidity of the judgment, and that the judgment was contrary to law. Additionally, he contended that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, although the court noted that an order overruling a motion for summary judgment is not final and thus not appealable.

The court found that the husband's claims did not adequately address the wife's registration petition, which referenced both the 1976 and 1980 judgments. The 1980 adjudication clarified the amount due under the previous judgment but did not alter its original terms. Ultimately, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, validating the registration of the California judgment.

The 1976 judgment, as clarified by a subsequent 1980 ruling, is presented for registration despite the petition only referencing the 1980 judgment. The husband contends that the doctrine of res judicata bars this action, misinterpreting the case Cedars Corp. v. Sun Valley Development Co. It is clarified that collateral estoppel, not res judicata, applies when identical issues have been previously determined, but the issues in Cockle I and the current case differ. In Cockle I, the wife's judgment was uncertain, while here, she seeks to register a judgment with a specific amount determined later.

The husband's first error claim is unsupported, and the next error involves two questions: the validity of the 1980 judgment concerning the California court's jurisdiction over the husband and whether the judgment is final enough for registration. No evidence regarding California's jurisdiction was presented, leading to the presumption that California law mirrors Nebraska law. By participating in the 1980 proceedings, the husband confirmed the California court's jurisdiction over him regarding the 1976 judgment.

Regarding the finality of judgments, a judgment may be final for certain purposes while still being under appeal. The state of rendition determines the judgment's finality, and California law indicates that an appeal without a supersedeas bond does not stay enforcement of monetary judgments. Since the judgment has not been superseded, it is enforceable in California, and thus in Nebraska, although enforcement may be suspended if vacated on appeal.

The husband's second assignment of error is deemed meritless. He claims that the 1976 judgment for the division of military nondisability retirement pay is invalid due to the ruling in McCarty v. McCarty, which asserted that federal law prohibits California from applying community property laws to such retirement pay. However, he did not appeal the 1976 judgment that awarded a portion of his retirement pay to his wife and is attempting to apply McCarty retroactively, which is not allowed since the judgment became final before McCarty was decided. Relevant California case law confirms that McCarty cannot retroactively affect finalized judgments regarding military retirement pensions. Thus, the 1976 judgment remains enforceable in both California and Nebraska. The husband's third assignment of error is also found without merit, as the trial court correctly granted the wife a summary judgment for registering the 1976 judgment, affirming that no genuine issue of material fact existed. The decision to affirm the summary judgment is upheld, with McCown, J. not participating.