Fellers v. Fellers
A-15-560
| Neb. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Sheryl and William Fellers divorced in 2012; decree awarded Sheryl a 40-acre tract called the “50 cent 40” and assigned debts secured by that tract (Farm Credit Services and First Central Bank) to William; William was ordered to indemnify and release Sheryl from those debts.
- Sheryl owed William an equalization payment of $83,050 payable in installments; she had paid one installment and still owed $75,539.12 when events unfolded.
- Sheryl sold the 50 cent 40 in February 2015 for $162,000; $146,090.33 of the sale proceeds were applied at closing to satisfy debts and taxes tied to William, and Sheryl also paid a $25 closing charge William should have paid.
- In January 2015 Sheryl filed a “petition to enforce decree and obtain judgment” seeking recovery from William of the net proceeds applied to his debts (less the balance she owed him). William answered and counterclaimed; both parties moved to dismiss various claims.
- The district court treated Sheryl’s petition as enforcement (not modification), found she was compelled to pay debts William had been ordered to satisfy, entered judgment for Sheryl (net $70,576.21 after offsetting her remaining debt) and awarded $2,000 in attorney fees to Sheryl.
- William appealed, raising jurisdictional, claim‑failure, classification of the First Central Bank debt, counterclaim dismissal, estoppel, and attorney‑fee challenges; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sheryl) | Defendant's Argument (William) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sheryl sought enforcement or modification of the divorce decree | Petition sought enforcement to recover proceeds used to pay debts William was ordered to satisfy | Argues the petition was a disguised untimely modification requiring summons and different jurisdictional rules | Court: enforcement, not modification; action enforces existing decree obligations (Davis, Dennis analogies) |
| Whether district court had subject‑matter jurisdiction (service/summons) | No summons required for enforcement; court retains power to enforce its decree | Lack of summons within six months deprives court of jurisdiction | Court: had jurisdiction to enforce decree; summons requirement for modification inapplicable |
| Whether complaint failed to state a claim | Alleged facts plausibly show William failed to remove liens and Sheryl was compelled to satisfy his debts; relief is enforcement | Argues allegations insufficient to state enforceable claim | Court: complaint sufficiently pleaded enforcement claim; denial of 12(b)(6) was proper |
| Classification of First Central Bank debt as premarital | Sheryl relied on decree and trial exhibit showing debt treated as William’s premarital obligation | William contends the debt was misclassified and should have been marital | Court: classification already litigated; law‑of‑the‑case bars relitigation; district court correct |
| Dismissal of William’s counterclaim / setoff request | — | Sought credits and judgments based on prior recalculation and alleged undisclosed debt | Court: counterclaim barred by law‑of‑the‑case because issues could have been raised on appeal |
| Equitable estoppel / acceptance of benefits defense | — | Argues Sheryl accepted benefits of decree and should be estopped from enforcement | Court: issue not preserved below; appellate court will not consider it |
| Award of attorney fees to Sheryl | Fees incurred because William failed to comply; Sheryl prevailed | Argues fee award improper | Court: fee award discretionary and supported by factors; $2,000 not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Webb, 287 Neb. 712, 844 N.W.2d 290 (construing decree meaning as question of law)
- Davis v. Davis, 265 Neb. 790, 660 N.W.2d 162 (distinguishing enforcement from modification where decree fixed obligations)
- Dennis v. Dennis, 6 Neb. App. 461, 574 N.W.2d 189 (award for amounts paid to satisfy spouse’s decree‑assigned debt is enforcement)
- Whitesides v. Whitesides, 290 Neb. 116, 858 N.W.2d 858 (district court retains jurisdiction over marital‑relation matters)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 19 Neb. App. 103, 803 N.W.2d 520 (court may enforce terms of initial decree)
- Holloway v. State, 293 Neb. 12, 875 N.W.2d 435 (standard for motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim)
- County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520, 755 N.W.2d 376 (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine principles)
- Brunges v. Brunges, 260 Neb. 660, 619 N.W.2d 456 (attorney fees in dissolution are discretionary)
- Sitz v. Sitz, 275 Neb. 832, 749 N.W.2d 470 (factors guiding attorney‑fee awards in family law)