Bryson L. v. Izabella L., 921 N.W.2d 829

Izabella and Bryson divorced in November 2016; the dissolution decree adjudicated Bryson as the child’s father, granted him sole physical custody, and ordered no child support.
In September 2017, David (an interested party) moved to intervene and to set aside paternity after genetic tests in August 2017 showed a 99.999% probability he was the father.
The district court dismissed David’s motions and entered an Opinion and Order on March 2, 2018, finding David had known of possible paternity earlier and failed to act timely.
David filed a Motion to Vacate/Reconsider on March 9 (within 10 days), which the court denied on March 13 for lack of a notice of hearing.
David filed a second Motion to Vacate/Reconsider on March 13 with a notice of hearing; the court treated the filings as a motion to alter or amend, denied relief on April 10, and David filed a notice of appeal on May 8.
The Supreme Court held David’s first March 9 filing qualified as a timely motion to alter or amend (terminating the initial appeal period), the March 13 second motion was untimely as an alteration motion and did not extend the appeal period, and David’s notice of appeal was therefore untimely.

Issue	David's Argument	Bryson's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is timely (appellate jurisdiction)	March 9 motion was a motion to vacate/reconsider and the later filings tolled/extended appeal time	March 9 motion qualified as a timely motion to alter or amend; the March 13 filing was untimely and did not extend appeal time	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: March 9 motion was a timely motion to alter or amend; denial on March 13 started new 30-day appeal period; David’s May notice was late
Whether the district court erred on the merits (deny intervention, set aside paternity, appoint GAL)	Relief was merited based on genetic test results and child best interests; GAL necessary	Court properly dismissed as untimely and on merits; GAL unnecessary given dismissal	Court did not reach merits; error assignments not considered because appellate jurisdiction lacking

Lombardo v. Sedlacek, 299 Neb. 400 (court discretion to excuse procedural defects when considering a timely motion to alter or amend)
State v. Lotter, 301 Neb. 125 (courts cannot extend statutory time for appeal; timely postjudgment motions affect appeal period)
Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (appeal-timing requirements under section governing notices of appeal)
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 286 Neb. 96 (untimely motions to alter or amend do not extend or suspend appeal deadlines)