Johnson v. Johnson, 956 N.W.2d 261

Background

Matthew and Elicia Johnson divorced in 2011; the decree (and a 2016 stipulated modification) was incorporated into the dissolution judgment and required Matthew to (1) establish college savings plans for both children that are “fully funded” by high school graduation and (2) provide each child with a safe, working automobile at age 16 and pay its purchase, registration, insurance, and repairs.
In December 2019 Matthew sought contempt against Elicia for denial of parenting time; in January 2020 Elicia sought contempt against Matthew for refusing to pay Mattison’s college and automobile expenses and for failing to provide documentation of the college account.
At the contempt hearing Mattison (the younger child) testified she had been estranged from Matthew for ~1½ years; Matthew admitted he had not provided documentation of the college account but testified he had funds available and that he believed Mattison had repudiated the relationship.
The district court found Matthew in contempt only for failing to provide documentation of the college savings account and ordered him to produce it; the court found he was not in contempt for failing to pay the recently-presented automobile expenses or for failing to pay college expenses (because the decree was ambiguous as to timing/disbursement), but it nonetheless interpreted and enforced the decree by ordering him to pay $10,882.02 (autos) and $12,715.43 (college).
The district court held Elicia in contempt for denying Matthew his parenting time. Matthew appealed, arguing the payment order was an improper contempt fine/damages and that the doctrine of repudiation excused his payment obligations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s payment order was an improper contempt fine or damages	Elicia sought enforcement of the decree and equitable relief through contempt proceedings	Matthew argued the payment order was a punitive fine/damages not authorized in civil contempt	The court held the payments were not a contempt fine or damages but an exercise of the court’s authority to interpret and enforce the dissolution decree
Whether Matthew was in contempt for failing to pay auto and college expenses and/or for failing to provide documentation	Elicia argued Matthew willfully refused to pay and failed to provide required documentation	Matthew argued he was not in contempt because he had been recently notified of specific expenses and the decree was ambiguous about college disbursement	The court found contempt only for failure to provide the documentation; it did not find contempt for nonpayment but nevertheless construed the decree to require payment and ordered enforcement
Whether the doctrine of repudiation/estrangement excuses Matthew’s obligation to pay post‑majority (or college) expenses	Elicia argued repudiation is irrelevant because the obligation arises from the parties’ agreement	Matthew argued Mattison’s repudiation relieved him of the obligation to fund her auto and college expenses	The court rejected repudiation: (1) Mattison was a minor when many expenses accrued; (2) Nebraska will enforce contractual post‑majority obligations; and (3) the decree reasonably requires the savings funds be used to pay the children’s college expenses

Key Cases Cited

Yori v. Helms, 307 Neb. 375, 949 N.W.2d 325 (Neb. 2020) (standard of review for civil contempt proceedings)
Bayne v. Bayne, 302 Neb. 858, 925 N.W.2d 687 (Neb. 2019) (decree meaning is a question of law decided from the four corners)
Whitesides v. Whitesides, 290 Neb. 116, 858 N.W.2d 858 (Neb. 2015) (district court’s continuing jurisdiction to enforce property settlement agreements)
McCullough v. McCullough, 299 Neb. 719, 910 N.W.2d 515 (Neb. 2018) (contempt proceedings may provide equitable relief to enforce dissolution decrees)
Carlson v. Carlson, 299 Neb. 526, 909 N.W.2d 351 (Neb. 2018) (enforcement of approved property settlement agreements providing for post‑majority support)
Foster v. Foster, 266 Neb. 32, 662 N.W.2d 191 (Neb. 2003) (courts in Nebraska lack authority to unilaterally order post‑majority support absent agreement)
Cook v. Covey, 415 Pa. Super. 353, 609 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (estrangement does not excuse contractual college‑support obligations)
McKay v. McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. App. 1994) (discussed repudiation doctrine in states that may impose post‑majority college support)
Milne v. Milne, 383 Pa. Super. 177, 556 A.2d 854 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989) (discussed repudiation as defense to court‑imposed post‑majority support)