Porter v. Porter, 309 Neb. 167

Sybil and Dustin Porter are divorced parents; prior orders modified child support and suspended payments in 2017 tied to Dustin’s workers’ compensation/Social Security benefits.
Sybil filed for modification on March 25, 2020, alleging a substantial change in income; Dustin was served but did not timely file a responsive pleading.
After a continued hearing, Dustin failed to appear at an August 17, 2020 default hearing; the court entered a default modification on August 18, 2020 ordering Dustin to pay $604/month plus $100 toward arrears.
Dustin moved within two weeks to vacate/alter the August order, asserting he did not appear and the order used inaccurate income information and incorrect guideline application.
The district court granted the motion, vacated the August modification during the same term, and set a status hearing; Sybil appealed from the October 2020 order vacating the default modification.
The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the vacatur order was not a final, appealable order because it did not affect a substantial right; a dissent argued prior precedent supported appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order vacating the default modification is a final, appealable order	Sybil: vacatur deprived her of finality and monthly support and therefore affected a substantial right, making immediate appeal necessary	Dustin: court has inherent power to vacate during the same term; vacatur merely allows him to defend and is not final	Court: vacatur did not affect a substantial right under §25-1902; not final or appealable; appeal dismissed
Whether the district court abused its discretion in vacating the default order	Sybil: sustaining the motion to vacate was an abuse of discretion	Dustin: court lawfully exercised equitable/inherent power to set aside default during the term	Court: did not reach the merits because it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal
Whether prior Nebraska precedent establishes a blanket rule that vacaturs of default judgments are appealable	Sybil: relies on Jones and Vacca treating vacaturs as appealable	Dustin: older cases hold vacaturs non-appealable; statute governs finality	Court: rejects a blanket rule; applies §25-1902 and earlier non-appealability decisions; Jones/Vacca not controlling as a categorical rule

Brown v. Edgerton, 14 Neb. 453 (Neb. 1883) (early holding that vacating a default judgment during the same term is not a final, appealable order)
Rose v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co., 69 Neb. 27 (Neb. 1903) (order setting aside judgment to allow defendant to answer is not final and not appealable)
Jones v. Nebraska Blue Cross Hospital Service Assn., 175 Neb. 101 (Neb. 1963) (held that an order vacating judgment is appealable)
Vacca v. DeJardine, 213 Neb. 736 (Neb. 1983) (endorsed Jones and characterized vacatur-as-appealable as the better-reasoned rule)
Fidler v. Life Care Centers of America, 301 Neb. 724 (Neb. 2018) (reaffirmed Jones/Vacca in dicta while addressing reinstatement; discussed final-order analysis)
Johnson v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 838 (Neb. 2015) (explained retroactivity principles for child support modification that inform whether rights are irreparably lost)