Tilson v. Tilson, 907 N.W.2d 31

Jayson Tilson filed for dissolution in Sept 2014; temporary custody of the parties’ children was awarded to grandmother Kimberly Hill; a guardian ad litem was appointed.
Jayson filed a motion to dismiss his dissolution complaint on Nov 16, 2015; a consent decree of dissolution was entered on Dec 8, 2015 granting custody to Kimberly and limited parenting time/support provisions.
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 to vacate the dissolution as void (arguing his Nov. 16, 2015 motion to dismiss was self-executing), or alternatively habeas relief or modification of custody; he also moved for temporary relief suspending enforcement and awarding him custody.
The district court denied the request to vacate the decree (Mar 31, 2017) and denied Jayson’s requests for temporary relief (Apr 4, 2017). Jayson appealed the April 4 order. The court later set a custody trial and continued other proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Apr 4, 2017 order is a final, appealable order	Jayson argued the court’s denial of his motions (including to suspend enforcement) was final and appealable	Kimberly argued the Apr 4 ruling only denied temporary relief and the court retained jurisdiction over unresolved issues	The court held the Apr 4 order was not final because it denied only temporary relief and the court retained jurisdiction over other pending issues
Whether the dissolution decree was void due to Jayson’s Nov 16, 2015 motion to dismiss	Jayson contended the motion was self-executing under §25-602, depriving the court of authority to enter the decree	Kimberly contended the decree and subsequent proceedings were valid and the dismissal motion did not void the decree	The court did not reach the merits of this argument on appeal because it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

Anderson v. Finkle, 296 Neb. 797 (jurisdictional questions of law reviewed de novo)
Huffman v. Huffman, 236 Neb. 101 (order resolving one of multiple custody-related issues is not final when other issues remain)
Schepers v. Schepers, 236 Neb. 406 (same principle: custody determination not final if support remains pending)
Paulsen v. Paulsen, 10 Neb. App. 269 (orders in special proceedings deciding fewer than all issues are not final to avoid piecemeal appeals)
In re Adoption of Madysen S., 293 Neb. 646 (an order affects a substantial right when postponing review would significantly undermine that right)