Francisco v. Gonzalez, 921 N.W.2d 350

Eulalia Miguel Francisco filed a paternity and custody action in Nebraska against Sergio Remigio De Leon Gonzalez alleging he fathered two children (born 2010 and 2016) and seeking sole physical and legal custody.
Eulalia obtained court permission to serve Sergio by publication; notice was published in a Douglas County legal newspaper.
Eulalia submitted an affidavit (with her motion for publication) stating she had no contact with Sergio for nearly two years and did not know his whereabouts; she did not mail the published notice to Sergio’s last known address nor file a post-publication affidavit complying with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-520.01.
The district court entered orders declaring paternity and awarding custody to Eulalia for one child (Yamileth) but later vacated the paternity/custody determination for the older child (Christopher) because the paternity proceeding was not timely; the court also concluded Eulalia failed to comply with the statute governing service by publication and thus lacked personal jurisdiction.
Eulalia appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether § 25-520.01 was satisfied and whether the district court had personal jurisdiction to enter the paternity and custody orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service by publication complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-520.01	Eulalia: her pre-publication affidavit sufficed; she did not know Sergio’s address so mailing wasn’t required	Sergio (via court): Eulalia failed to mail notice to his last known address and did not file the post-publication affidavit showing diligent inquiry	Held: Eulalia failed to comply with § 25-520.01 (no mailing to last known address; affidavit inadequate)
Whether district court acquired personal jurisdiction over Sergio	Eulalia: constructive service by publication was adequate	Sergio: lack of statutorily required mailing/affidavit means no personal jurisdiction	Held: Court lacked personal jurisdiction because statutory requirements were not met
Whether orders entered without personal jurisdiction are reviewable here	Eulalia: appealed district court’s refusal to grant additional findings and relief	Respondent: orders void if entered without jurisdiction	Held: Orders entered without personal jurisdiction are void and cannot confer appellate jurisdiction; appellate court may vacate and dismiss
Whether appellate court could decide merits despite jurisdictional defect	Eulalia: inconsistency in district court decisions should allow merits review for Yamileth	Respondent: jurisdictional defect precludes enforcement of any orders against him	Held: Appellate court must vacate void orders and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction rather than reach merits

Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (publication alone may not satisfy due process when beneficiaries have known addresses)
Johnson v. Johnson, 282 Neb. 42 (2011) (judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void)
In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760 (2010) (appellate power to determine jurisdictional defects and vacate void orders)
In re Guardianship of Carlos D., 300 Neb. 646 (2018) (context on findings necessary for special immigrant juvenile status)
Farmers Co-op. Mercantile Co. v. Sidner, 175 Neb. 94 (1963) (failure to comply with statutory publication requirements defeats personal jurisdiction)
In re Adoption of Leslie P., 8 Neb. App. 954 (2000) (interpreting § 25-520.01 to require mailing to last known address)