Jurisdiction is a key aspect in appellate court proceedings, determined as a matter of law when no factual dispute exists. An appellate court must confirm its jurisdiction before addressing legal issues. Proper perfection of an appeal is essential; failure to comply with constitutional or statutory requirements results in a lack of jurisdiction. In Nebraska, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the judgment, as outlined in Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1912(1), making timely filing a jurisdictional necessity. Additionally, motions to alter or amend a judgment must be filed within 10 days post-judgment and should seek to substantively change the judgment, per Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1329. In this case, the appeal stemmed from a dissolution decree issued by the Douglas County district court, with Laura Kingston appealing and Trevor Kingston cross-appealing. Following a trial, the court issued a decree on May 27, 2021, which Laura sought to amend on June 3, while Trevor filed a motion for clarification the next day. The court partially granted Laura's motion on June 14, leading to Trevor's subsequent motion on June 21. Despite these motions, Laura filed a notice of appeal on July 13, resulting in the dismissal of both the appeal and cross-appeal due to lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The district court ruled on July 30 that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a motion due to Laura's notice of appeal filed on July 13, 2021. Neither party appealed this ruling. Laura's assignments of error include objections to joint physical custody, denial of alimony, child support calculations, exclusion of certain marital estate components, and treatment of investment account appreciation. Trevor's cross-appeal challenges the inclusion of Laura's student loan debt in the marital estate, the partial granting of Laura's motion to alter or amend, denial of his opportunity to address his motion to reconsider, lack of reciprocity in childcare expense reimbursements, and an order for him to pay $10,000 toward Laura's attorney fees.
The appellate court must first assess its jurisdiction, which hinges on whether Trevor’s June 21, 2021, motion to reconsider is deemed a timely motion to alter or amend, affecting the effectiveness of Laura’s earlier appeal. Laura's counsel acknowledged that the jurisdictional question relies on this classification, while Trevor's counsel argued that the motion qualifies, rendering Laura's July 13 notice of appeal ineffective. The appellate court emphasizes that jurisdiction requires proper perfection of an appeal, defined by statutory compliance with notice filing timelines. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1912(3), a timely motion to alter or amend halts the appeal timeframe, necessitating a new appeal notice after the ruling on such a motion, and any prior notice is rendered ineffective.
Two motions were filed shortly after the May 27, 2021, decree: Laura's motion to alter or amend or for a new trial and Trevor's motion for an order nunc pro tunc, which was treated as a motion to alter or amend. These motions reset the appeal period following the June 14 order that addressed them. The key jurisdictional issue arose from Trevor's June 21 motion to reconsider, which was filed seven days after the June 14 order. This motion's classification as a timely motion to alter or amend the June 14 order would further terminate and reset the appeal period until the court's resolution on July 30. A motion qualifies as a motion to alter or amend if it is filed within 10 days of the judgment and seeks substantive changes, as established by Nebraska law and case precedents. Trevor's motion sought substantive alteration regarding Laura’s student loan debt and was timely filed. Therefore, it functioned as a motion to alter or amend, delaying Laura’s July 13 notice of appeal, which was ineffective because the judgments were not final at that time. As neither party filed a new notice of appeal within 30 days after the July 30 order, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal and cross-appeal, leading to their dismissal.
