Kibler v. Kibler, 287 Neb. 1027

Kevin Kibler filed a pro se complaint for divorce from Cheryl Kibler; settlement led to a drafted decree signed by neither party; decree entered by the court at a compelled hearing; Cheryl later moved to vacate; district court denied; decree became final; on appeal Cheryl challenges the vacate ruling and asserted rule/fraud concerns; the court addressed §42-361 findings and local rules; court affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in overruling the amended motion to vacate.	Kibler argues district court erred.	Cheryl argued misapplication of §42-361 and lack of signed agreement.	No abuse; court acted within discretion.
Whether entering a decree without Cheryl’s signature violated rules and the statute of frauds.	Cheryl contends rule 2-3 and §36-105 required signatures.	Kibler argues waivers and context justified entry.	Waiver upheld; no reversible error.
Whether §42-361 findings were required and properly considered.	Cheryl sought §42-361 findings.	Court considered circumstances beyond pleadings; findings not required given final decree.	Findings not required under the circumstances; no reversal.

Moackler v. Finley, 207 Neb. 353 (1980) (inherent power to vacate during term; discretion standard)
Hartman v. Hartman, 265 Neb. 515 (2003) (abuse of discretion defined; tenable/unsupported reasons)
Brunges v. Brunges, 255 Neb. 837 (1998) (inappropriate rule waivers when no injustice)
Wilson v. Wilson, 238 Neb. 219 (1991) (inherent power to waive rules; no injustice)
Heese Produce Co. v. Lueders, 233 Neb. 12 (1989) (support for treated waiver/summary of rationale)
Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Kight, 246 Neb. 619 (1994) (related to waiver of procedural rules)