Tilson v. Tilson, 299 Neb. 64

Jayson Tilson filed for dissolution in Sept 2014; temporary custody of the parties’ children was awarded to maternal grandmother Kimberly Hill; Kimberly intervened and sought custody/visitation.
On Nov 16, 2015, Jayson filed a motion to dismiss the dissolution petition; a consent dissolution decree was entered Dec 8, 2015, continuing custody with Kimberly and setting parenting time and support obligations.
Jayson was later held in contempt (Oct 2016) for failing to pay childcare contributions under the decree.
On Feb 24, 2017, Jayson filed a pleading seeking (a) declaratory relief that the decree was void (arguing his Nov 16 motion to dismiss was self-executing), (b) habeas corpus awarding him custody, (c) alternatively, modification of custody, and (d) temporary emergency relief.
The district court denied the request to vacate the decree (Mar 31, 2017) and denied Jayson’s requests for temporary relief (reflected in an Apr 4, 2017 order). Jayson filed a notice of appeal from the Apr 4 order on May 3, 2017.
The court later set a custody trial and continued to address temporary custody/parenting-time matters after the notice of appeal; the Supreme Court held the Apr 4 order was not final and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Apr 4, 2017 order is a final, appealable order	Jayson treated the Apr 4 order denying temporary relief as appealable	Kimberly (and court) treated the Apr 4 order as interlocutory because other issues remained pending	Apr 4 order is not final; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the dissolution decree was void because Jayson’s Nov 16, 2015 motion to dismiss was self-executing under § 25-602	Jayson argued his earlier motion to dismiss deprived the court of jurisdiction so the later consent decree is void	Respondents and trial court treated the decree as valid and Jayson’s motion did not automatically divest jurisdiction	Supreme Court did not reach the merits because it lacked jurisdiction to review the Apr 4 order; question reserved for trial court proceedings or future appeal if/when final
Appealability of orders denying temporary custody or temporary relief in modification proceedings	Jayson contended denial of temporary relief should be immediately reviewable	Kimberly argued such temporary orders preserve status quo and are not final; appellate review should await resolution of all related issues	Court held denials of temporary relief that preserve the status quo are not final and do not substantially affect rights so as to permit immediate appeal

Huffman v. Huffman, 236 Neb. 101 (Neb. 1990) (an order deciding one issue in a custody-modification application while other related issues remain pending is not final)
Schepers v. Schepers, 236 Neb. 406 (Neb. 1990) (custody determination not final when support issue remains pending)
Paulsen v. Paulsen, 10 Neb. App. 269 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001) (practical reasons to avoid piecemeal appeals in special proceedings involving custody and support)
Gerber v. Gerber, 218 Neb. 228 (Neb. 1984) (orders affecting custody or visitation of limited duration are generally not final)
In re Adoption of Madysen S., 293 Neb. 646 (Neb. 2016) (discussing final-order principles in proceedings affecting parental rights)
State v. Jacques, 253 Neb. 247 (Neb. 1997) (statutory framework for final orders and appellate jurisdiction)