Jaksha v. Jaksha, 319 Neb. 308

Matthew and Jessica Jaksha divorced in 2017, with joint custody and a detailed parenting plan, including a sobriety condition for Jessica.
In 2020, custody was modified by stipulation: Matthew received sole legal custody; Jessica maintained physical custody rights, with continued sobriety requirements.
In 2021, after new allegations about Jessica’s substance use, a second modification (agreed by both) gave Matthew sole legal and physical custody, established a tiered parenting schedule for Jessica conditioned on sobriety, and eliminated her child support obligations.
In 2023, Jessica sought another modification based on her sustained sobriety. The court dismissed the complaint, finding no material change unaddressed by prior orders.
Jessica then (in 2024) sought to vacate or amend the 2021 modification order, claiming it was not a final order and arguing it was punitive or inequitable.
The district court denied the motion to vacate or modify, holding the 2021 order was final and not subject to modification under any of the recognized grounds.

Issue	Jaksha (Jessica) Argument	Jaksha (Matthew) Argument	Held
Was the 2021 order final or interlocutory?	Order was not final because it did not resolve all issues or attach a new parenting plan, so further modification possible.	Order was final, resolved all issues, and was based on parties' stipulation in court.	2021 order was final; no ambiguity or pending issues remained.
Is modification/vacatur still permitted under court’s inherent/statutory/equitable powers?	Court retains authority to vacate or amend due to non-finality and equity.	Authority expired with passage of term, time limits, and no grounds established under statute or equity.	No authority remained; all statutory and equitable windows had closed.
Did Jessica establish grounds to vacate the 2021 order under § 25-2001(4) or equitable powers?	Argued the 2021 order was punitive, inequitable, and should not stand; lacked detailed grounds/citations.	Argued no statutory or equitable basis/grounds to vacate; time-barred, no fraud or new evidence.	Jessica did not show any basis for vacatur in statute or equity; request denied.
Was the order void for violating public policy (raised on appeal)?	Argued on appeal the order was void due to limits on her parenting time and public policy.	Argued this claim was not preserved below and should not be considered.	Court refused to consider argument; not raised before district court.

Eicher v. Mid America Fin. Invest. Corp., 275 Neb. 462 (Neb. 2008) (affirming broad but time-limited inherent power to modify orders; powers expire at end of court term)
Hornig v. Martel Lift Systems, 258 Neb. 764 (Neb. 2000) (authority to vacate or modify order post-term has concurrent statutory and equitable paths)
Joyce v. Joyce, 229 Neb. 831 (Neb. 1988) (review of the court’s equitable power to set aside judgments)
Ballheim v. Settles, 318 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2025) (judgment is not open to amendment or correction after the end of the term)
Parish v. Parish, 314 Neb. 370 (Neb. 2023) (void judgments and the requirements for jurisdiction)