Stevens v. Stevens, 292 Neb. 827

Kimberly and Michael Stevens divorced in 2003; Kimberly received custody and Michael was ordered to pay child support.
In 2014 the State intervened and sought modification of Michael’s support obligation, alleging a material decrease in his income.
The district court referred the matter to a child support referee, who held a hearing and filed recommendations on February 17, 2015, recommending a reduction in Michael’s support.
The district court issued an order on February 17 adopting the referee’s recommendations but expressly made the order conditional: parties had 14 days to file exceptions, and if exceptions were filed the order would be stayed until further court order.
Kimberly appealed the February 17, 2015 order, arguing among other things that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the modification/ calculations were erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to modify child support	Kimberly: court lacked jurisdiction because a preexisting support order existed	State/Michael: court had authority to modify under the intervenor complaint and referee process	Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because order appealed was conditional, not final
Whether the February 17 order was final and appealable	Kimberly treated it as final and appealed	State argued it were conditional and not yet final	Court held the order was conditional (subject to 14-day exceptions) and therefore not appealable
Whether the referee’s recommendations could be adopted the same day they were filed	Kimberly implied procedural error in immediate adoption	Court noted alternative practice of waiting 14 days but focused on conditional nature of order	Court criticized immediate conditional adoption but dismissed appeal on jurisdictional grounds
Whether other substantive errors (calculation, retroactive arrearage waiver, delegation, Social Security credit) could be reviewed	Kimberly raised these substantive errors	State/Michael would defend on merits if appeal were properly before court	Court did not reach substantive issues due to lack of jurisdiction

In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Barnhart, 290 Neb. 314, 859 N.W.2d 856 (2015) (jurisdiction is a question of law)
Custom Fabricators v. Lenarduzzi, 259 Neb. 453, 610 N.W.2d 391 (2000) (orders conditioned on future action are not appealable)
State ex rel. Stenberg v. Moore, 258 Neb. 199, 602 N.W.2d 465 (1999) (conditional orders lack finality for appeal)
Fitzgerald v. Community Redevelopment Corp., 283 Neb. 428, 811 N.W.2d 178 (2012) (conditional orders may become final when conditions are satisfied)
Nichols v. Nichols, 288 Neb. 339, 847 N.W.2d 307 (2014) (appellate jurisdiction requires a final order)