Mansuetta v. Mansuetta, 295 Neb. 667

Nicholas filed for dissolution of marriage in Buffalo County in April 2014; the parties had executed a prenuptial agreement the day before their 2008 marriage.
Valerie filed a separate declaratory judgment action in September 2014 asking the district court to declare the prenup invalid or partially unenforceable; she acknowledged the pending dissolution action and that enforcement of the prenup was at issue there.
Nicholas moved to dismiss or consolidate the declaratory action into the pending dissolution; the district court denied those motions and allowed the declaratory action to proceed.
After trial in the declaratory action, the district court found the prenuptial agreement wholly valid and enforceable and entered an order to that effect.
Valerie appealed, arguing among other things that the district court erred in finding the prenup enforceable; the Supreme Court limited review to whether the declaratory action should have been entertained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Valerie)	Defendant's Argument (Nicholas)	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by entertaining Valerie’s separate declaratory judgment action while a dissolution action raising the same issue was pending	Valerie pursued a declaratory action to obtain an immediate, appealable ruling that the prenup is invalid or partially unenforceable	Nicholas argued the declaratory action duplicated issues already raised in his earlier-filed dissolution and should be dismissed or consolidated	Court held the district court abused its discretion; declaratory action should have been dismissed because identical issues were already pending in the dissolution action

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 268 Neb. 439 (discretionary nature of refusal to render declaratory relief)
Scudder v. County of Buffalo, 170 Neb. 293 (general rule: do not entertain declaratory action when equally serviceable remedy exists)
Strawn v. County of Sarpy, 146 Neb. 783 (jurisdiction not entertained if identical issues are pending in another action)
Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Yelich, 250 Neb. 345 (court abused discretion by entertaining declaratory action duplicative of pending case)
Phelps County v. City of Holdrege, 133 Neb. 139 (trial court should refuse declaration where another proceeding involving identical issues is pending)
Berigan Bros. v. Growers Cattle Credit Corp., 182 Neb. 656 (declaratory action cannot supersede pending proceedings that can determine rights)