Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal
311 Neb. 495
Neb.2022Background
- Marriage dissolved by June 2018 decree that incorporated a marital settlement agreement and a parenting plan awarding the parties "joint legal and physical custody" of their child.
- Parenting plan required parents to "share Joint Legal Custody (decision-making)," to notify each other of residence changes, to mediate disputes, and required court application for moves out of state or proposed schedule changes.
- In August 2020, without obtaining a court modification, Nessa moved the child from Burwell to Springfield and enrolled the child in a Springfield school over Eric’s objection; she had notified Eric and later attempted mediation but did not obtain his agreement or a court order.
- The district court initially declined Eric’s contempt request; Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether Nessa violated the decree and acted willfully.
- After the hearing the district court again found no violation or willfulness, reasoning the plan required only discussion; the Supreme Court on further review held the court erred in its interpretation, found Nessa willfully violated the decree, and remanded with directions to order remedial/coercive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "joint legal custody" in the integrated decree | Vyhlidal: term is statutory term of art and requires mutual authority for fundamental decisions (education, residence) | Nessa: parenting plan language merely requires discussion, not mutual final decisionmaking | Court: "joint legal custody" is a defined term of art; absent an explicit contrary definition in the plan, it carries the statutory meaning of mutual authority and responsibility |
| Whether moving the child and changing schools violated the decree | Vyhlidal: unilateral move and enrollment without mutual agreement violated the joint legal custody requirement | Nessa: she notified Eric, discussed the move, and attempted mediation—so complied with the plan | Court: move and enrollment without mutual agreement violated the decree |
| Whether the violation was willful (element of contempt) | Vyhlidal: willful because Nessa knew Eric objected, had no court modification, and nonetheless moved and enrolled the child | Nessa: believed plan only required discussion and attempted mediation; lacked subjective intent to violate | Court: willfulness proven by clear and convincing evidence; subjective belief was legally incorrect and insufficient |
| Appropriate relief for contempt | Vyhlidal: requests coercive/remedial relief including return of child to prior residence/school and attorney fees | Nessa: (implicit) opposes coercive relief; no contempt should be found | Court: remand with directions to find willful contempt, order immediate return to Burwell/school, award reasonable attorney fees, and impose appropriate coercive sanctions (district court may also consider modification requests) |
Key Cases Cited
- Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 309 Neb. 376, 960 N.W.2d 309 (Neb. 2021) (prior appellate opinion construing the parenting plan and classifying school choice as a fundamental decision)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 308 Neb. 623, 956 N.W.2d 261 (Neb. 2021) (decree interpretation is a question of law to be decided from the four corners of the decree)
- Becher v. Becher, 970 N.W.2d 472 (Neb. 2022) (civil contempt standards, burden of proof, and availability of coercive/remedial sanctions and attorney fees)
- State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933, 932 N.W.2d 692 (Neb. 2019) (legal custody concerns decisionmaking authority)
- Kalkowski v. Nebraska Nat. Trails Museum Found., 290 Neb. 798, 862 N.W.2d 294 (Neb. 2015) (terms of art and trade/legal terms should be given their specialized meaning)
- Bayne v. Bayne, 302 Neb. 858, 925 N.W.2d 687 (Neb. 2019) (effect must be given to every part of a decree; interpret integrated documents as a whole)