Friedman v. Friedman
290 Neb. 973
Neb.2015Background
- Susan C. Friedman (Roggentine) registered a Colorado dissolution judgment in Nebraska seeking enforcement of sums she claimed totaled $160,458.49 (affidavit) though the Colorado decree’s line items sum to $195,707.49.
- The registration affidavit incorrectly listed Friedman's street number (188th vs. 118th), and initial clerk notice was returned undeliverable; later garnishment papers listed the correct address and were sent to the employer.
- Roggentine served a summons in garnishment; employer received it and sent notice to Friedman’s payroll processor; Friedman later filed pro se objections contesting notice, the judgment amount, and garnishment service.
- At the July hearing Friedman contested lack of notice, the correct enforceable amount of the Colorado decree, and requested head-of-household status for garnishment purposes; the court found he made a general appearance and overruled his objections, and later found he was head of household.
- Friedman appealed, arguing (1) inadequate notice/due process, (2) the registered judgment amount was incorrect/ambiguous, (3) garnishment improperly proceeded without valid registration, and (4) garnishment rate and failure to remedy earlier higher withholding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Friedman lacked proper notice of registration/garnishment (and thus was denied due process) | Friedman: notice mailed to wrong address; therefore registration and garnishment invalid and deprived him of opportunity to be heard | Roggentine: affidavit listed an address (albeit with typo); garnishment papers later listed correct address and were served; Friedman nevertheless appeared and contested merits | Held: Friedman made a general appearance by litigating issues other than jurisdiction/process and thus waived service/due process objections; court did not err |
| Whether the Colorado judgment amount was too uncertain/ambiguous to register/enforce | Friedman: decree is ambiguous and enforceable amount should be $149,000; alternatively, court should enter declaratory judgment to fix amount | Roggentine: judgment is final and not ambiguous; registration procedure under Nebraska law is proper; collateral attack limited | Held: Judgment not ambiguous as a matter of law; collateral attack limited to voidness (jurisdiction); district court properly enforced registered foreign judgment |
| Whether garnishment amount and head-of-household status were improperly set and whether prior non-head withholding must be remedied | Friedman: garnishment proceeded at non-head rate initially and later at maximum; court should adjust garnishment and refund previous over-withholding | Roggentine: garnishment calculation followed court’s rulings; no timely, specific request below to remedy prior withholding | Held: Issues not properly presented below; pro se status does not relax presentation rules; appellate court will not consider new theories; court did not err in refusing relief |
| Whether appellee’s attempt to correct the registered total via cross-appeal is procedurally proper | Roggentine: asks appellate court to correct amount to $195,707.49 | Friedman: (opposed implicitly) cross-appeal must follow appellate rules | Held: Roggentine failed to file a proper cross-appeal under court rules; appellate court declined to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindner v. Kindig, 285 Neb. 386 (motion-to-dismiss pleading standard)
- Cockle v. Cockle, 204 Neb. 88 (foreign judgment unenforceable if amount cannot be ascertained without external facts)
- Deuth v. Ratigan, 256 Neb. 419 (judgment must specify money amount with certainty to be enforceable)
- Martin v. Martin, 188 Neb. 393 (pro se litigant held to same standards and entitlement to consideration)