Johnson v. Johnson
308 Neb. 623
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Matthew and Elicia Johnson divorced in 2011; the decree (incorporating a property settlement) awarded joint legal custody and required Matthew to establish "college savings plans for the minor children" fully funded by high school graduation and to provide each child a car at age 16 (including registration, insurance, and repairs). A 2016 stipulated modification reiterated Matthew’s responsibility to provide cars, insurance, and maintenance.
- In late 2019/early 2020 both parties filed contempt applications: Matthew alleged denial of parenting time; Elicia alleged Matthew refused to pay for Mattison’s college and automobile expenses and refused to provide documentation showing the college accounts were fully funded.
- At the contempt hearing Mattison (the daughter) testified she had largely cut off contact with Matthew since 2018; Matthew admitted limited relationship and that he had not provided documentation of the college account but claimed funds were available.
- The district court found Matthew not in contempt for failing to pay the recently-notified automobile and college expenses (lack of willfulness/notice), but found him in contempt for failing to provide documentation of the college account and ordered him to produce it; the court nevertheless interpreted the decree as requiring Matthew to pay $10,882.02 (auto) and $12,715.43 (college) and ordered payment; the court found Elicia in contempt for denying parenting time.
- Matthew appealed, arguing the monetary orders were impermissible contempt damages/fines and that the doctrine of repudiation (daughter’s estrangement) excused his payment obligations. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Elicia's Argument | Matthew's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether monetary orders were an improper contempt fine or damages | The payments enforce the decree (property settlement), not punish Matthew | The district court imposed a punitive/damages-type award in a contempt proceeding, which is impermissible | The court held the payments were enforcement of the decree (equitable relief), not contempt fines/damages; district court had authority to enforce settlement terms |
| Whether the dissolution decree required Matthew to pay college and automobile expenses | Decree and 2016 modification obligate Matthew to fund college accounts and provide/pay for cars and related costs | The college provision only required establishing accounts (not use of funds); he could refuse payment (especially if child repudiated him) | The court construed the decree as requiring use of the accounts to pay the children’s college and as requiring payment of the automobile expenses per the decree/modification |
| Whether daughter’s repudiation/estrangement relieves Matthew of his contractual obligations | The property settlement controls; estrangement is irrelevant to obligations voluntarily assumed | Repudiation doctrine from other states should excuse a parent from post‑majority or post‑separation educational/car obligations where child rejected the parent | The court rejected the repudiation defense: Nebraska enforces voluntary post‑majority obligations in agreements; estrangement does not negate contractual obligations |
| Validity of contempt findings (failure to provide documentation; parenting time denial) | Matthew willfully withheld required documentation; Elicia was denied court‑ordered parenting time | Matthew lacked notice of specific expenses and had funded account; he lacked relationship with daughter | Court found Matthew in contempt for failing to provide documentation but not in contempt for nonpayment (due to late notice); Elicia was found in contempt for denying parenting time |
Key Cases Cited
- Yori v. Helms, 307 Neb. 375 (2020) (three‑part standard of review in civil contempt proceedings)
- Bayne v. Bayne, 302 Neb. 858 (2019) (decree meaning is a question of law to be determined from the four corners of the decree)
- Whitesides v. Whitesides, 290 Neb. 116 (2015) (district court retains jurisdiction to enforce property settlement agreements)
- McCullough v. McCullough, 299 Neb. 719 (2018) (contempt proceedings may provide equitable relief and enforce dissolution decrees)
- Carlson v. Carlson, 299 Neb. 526 (2018) (Nebraska enforces voluntarily agreed post‑majority child support in settlement agreements)
- Foster v. Foster, 266 Neb. 32 (2003) (courts cannot judicially impose post‑majority child support absent agreement)
- Cook v. Covey, 415 Pa. Super. 353 (1992) (where parent agreed to pay college expenses, estrangement of child does not relieve that contractual duty)
- McKay v. McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. App. 1994) (repudiation doctrine discussed in jurisdictions that can judicially order post‑majority support)
- Milne v. Milne, 383 Pa. Super. 177 (1989) (same)