Jurisdiction is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, particularly when there are no factual disputes. Before addressing legal issues, an appellate court must confirm its jurisdiction. An appeal is not properly perfected if a party fails to meet necessary constitutional or statutory requirements, which include filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of the final order, as mandated by Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1912(1). Furthermore, a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed within 10 days post-judgment and seek substantive changes, per Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1329.
In the case of Kingston v. Kingston, the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed both Laura A. Kingston’s appeal and Trevor L. Kingston’s cross-appeal due to lack of appellate jurisdiction. Laura’s appeal arose from a dissolution decree entered on May 27, 2021, after a trial, and she filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment on June 3. Trevor filed a motion for clarification on June 4, which led to a June 14 order partially granting Laura’s motion. Laura filed a notice of appeal on July 13, which raised questions about the district court's jurisdiction to hear Trevor’s subsequent motion set for a July 29 hearing. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal for jurisdictional reasons.
On July 30, the court denied a motion due to a lack of jurisdiction, citing Laura's appeal filed on July 13, 2021. Neither party appealed the July 30 order. Laura claims six errors by the district court: (1) ordering joint physical custody, (2) denying alimony, (3) incomplete income consideration for child support, (4) excluding certain financial assets from the marital estate, (5) failure to apply the time rule to premarital shares, and (6) classifying investment account appreciation as passive. On cross-appeal, Trevor alleges five errors: (1) inclusion of Laura’s student loan debt in the marital estate, (2) partial approval of Laura's motion to alter or amend, (3) denying him a hearing on his motion to reconsider, (4) lack of reciprocity in childcare expense reimbursement, and (5) ordering him to pay $10,000 toward Laura's attorney fees.
The appellate court must first determine its jurisdiction. Counsel for Laura argued that Trevor's June 21, 2021, motion to reconsider may have been a timely motion to alter or amend, affecting the appeal's effectiveness. Trevor's counsel supported this assertion. The appellate court upheld that jurisdiction hinges on properly perfecting the appeal, which requires timely filing of a notice of appeal within thirty days of a final order, as outlined in Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1912. A timely motion to alter or amend halts the appeal timeline, necessitating a new notice of appeal after the ruling on such motions. In this case, both parties filed terminating motions within 10 days of the initial decree on May 27, 2021.
The time for filing an appeal from the May 27 decree was interrupted and restarted following the court's June 14 order. The pivotal jurisdictional issue revolves around Trevor’s motion to reconsider filed on June 21, which was seven days post the June 14 order. If deemed a timely motion to alter or amend, the appeal period would be reset after the court's ruling on this motion on July 30. A motion, regardless of its title, is assessed based on its content. For it to qualify as a motion to alter or amend, it must be submitted within 10 days of the judgment and seek substantive changes, as per Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1329. The Nebraska Supreme Court has affirmed that a motion to reconsider can be recognized as such if filed timely and seeking substantive alterations. Trevor's motion requested various alternative forms of relief aimed at altering the June 14 order regarding Laura’s student loan debt and was indeed filed within the required timeframe. Consequently, this motion functioned as a motion to alter or amend, which paused the appeal window. Laura's notice of appeal, submitted on July 13 before the resolution of Trevor's motion, was ineffective. Since neither party filed a new notice of appeal within 30 days of the July 30 ruling, the court lacks jurisdiction to address the appeal issues raised. The conclusion reached is that Trevor’s motion to reconsider was timely and terminated the appeal period, rendering Laura’s appeal ineffective and resulting in the dismissal of both the appeal and cross-appeal.
