State ex rel. Marcelo K. v. Ricky K., 912 N.W.2d 747

The State sued Ricky K. to establish child support for two minors, Marcelo and Rycki, based on notarized acknowledgments of paternity; Belinda D., the mother, was joined.
Ricky counterclaimed/cross-claimed that he was not Marcelo’s biological father, alleging fraud/material mistake/duress to disestablish paternity as to Marcelo; he admitted paternity of Rycki and sought custody of Rycki.
The disestablishment issue for Marcelo was referred to a district court referee; genetic tests excluded Ricky as Marcelo’s biological father. The referee nonetheless recommended denying disestablishment, finding insufficient proof of fraud/mistake/duress.
The district court rejected the referee, made independent findings, and on June 19, 2017 entered an order disestablishing Ricky’s paternity of Marcelo; the order said nothing about Rycki or the State’s support claims.
The State appealed from the June 19 order; the district court later entered a September 6 decree resolving remaining claims (including paternity/custody regarding Rycki). The State did not appeal from the September 6 decree.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the June 19, 2017 order disestablishing paternity was a final, appealable judgment	The State: the June 19 order was final because it affected a substantial right in a special proceeding and effectively determined the action as to Marcelo	Ricky: the June 19 order was not final because multiple claims/parties remained and the court did not expressly direct entry of final judgment under § 25-1315	The court held the June 19 order was nonfinal and not appealable because multiple claims/parties remained and the court did not make the express § 25-1315 findings (no jurisdiction; appeal dismissed)
Whether the court should review the merits of the disestablishment (fraud/mistake/duress) on direct appeal	The State requested review of the district court's finding that Ricky met the statutory standard to set aside the acknowledgment	Ricky argued lack of appellate jurisdiction over the June 19 order; merits review premature on a nonfinal order	The court declined to reach the merits for lack of jurisdiction under § 25-1315; it emphasized the district court’s retention of jurisdiction and later decree resolving remaining claims

Deleon v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 287 Neb. 419, 843 N.W.2d 601 (2014) (jurisdictional/finality principles)
Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Dailey, 268 Neb. 733, 687 N.W.2d 689 (2004) (application of § 25-1315 to partial adjudications)
Guardian Tax Partners, Inc. v. Skrupa Invest. Co., 295 Neb. 639, 889 N.W.2d 825 (2017) (requirement for express determination and direction under § 25-1315)
Streck, Inc. v. Ryan Family, 297 Neb. 773, 901 N.W.2d 284 (2017) (discussion of final-order requirements under Nebraska law)