Manetti v. Smith, A-24-329

Jacob Smith and Sarah Manetti were married in 2021 and have one child; Sarah filed for divorce in April 2023, seeking sole custody and property division.
During the proceedings, Jacob appeared pro se for significant portions after his attorney withdrew; he repeatedly attempted to secure new counsel and sought continuances, which were either granted or denied at various stages.
The district court issued temporary orders granting Sarah custody and specifying conditions for Jacob's parenting, including drug tests and payment obligations (child support, mortgage).
Jacob was found in contempt for failure to comply with temporary orders, including nonpayment of support and mortgage, noncompliance with drug tests, and mishandling marital assets.
The final decree awarded Sarah sole custody and the marital residence (with a refinance/sale condition), set child support at $641/month, and required Jacob to pay an equalization payment; Jacob's post-trial motions for new trial or to vacate were denied.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reviewed the discretionary standards for continuance, new trial, and equitable division, affirming the district court as modified regarding the apportionment of certain childcare and medical expenses.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Manetti's Argument	Held
Denial of Continuance, New Trial, or Vacate	Needed more time to get counsel; trial date was premature	Smith had ample time/opportunity to secure counsel	No abuse of discretion; Smith had multiple opportunities
Division of Marital Estate	Home should be sold/split; Sarah's 401(k) and accounts ignored	Court considered all claims/equities, evidence was limited	Fair division; minor property value assignment balanced
Determination of Child Support	Court inflated earning capacity; should use lower recent income	Child support based on earning capacity and past earnings	No abuse; evidence supported earning capacity imputation
Parenting Time & Expense Allocation	Objected to non-specific schedule and expense proportions	Parenting plan and proportions were appropriate	Modified expense split to 53/47 per guidelines

Weiss v. Weiss, 260 Neb. 1015 (motion for continuance after attorney withdrawal—relevant distinction on abuse of discretion)
Sulzle v. Sulzle, 318 Neb. 194 (standard for new trial motions—discretion of trial court)
Kibler v. Kibler, 287 Neb. 1027 (court discretion to vacate or modify decrees during term)
Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681 (marital asset distribution principles)
Parde v. Parde, 313 Neb. 779 (equitable distribution and abuse of discretion standard)
Freeman v. Groskopf, 286 Neb. 713 (imputation of earning capacity in child support)