Johnson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 12 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. S-20-428.,S-20-428. |
| Citation | 308 Neb. 623,956 N.W.2d 261 |
| Parties | Elicia Marie JOHNSON, appellee, v. Matthew Eugene JOHNSON, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
John A. Kinney and Jill M. Mason, of Kinney & Mason, P.C., L.L.O., Omaha, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Papik, J. Matthew Eugene Johnson appeals from a district court order finding that the decree that dissolved his marriage required him to pay for his daughter's college education and automobile. He contends that the district court order was punitive and thus inappropriately entered in a civil contempt proceeding, and that the district court should have found that he was not obligated to pay for the expenses at issue because his daughter had repudiated her relationship with him. We find no merit to Matthew's contentions and therefore affirm.
Matthew and Elicia Marie Johnson were married in 1995. During the marriage, they had two children: Kamren Johnson, born in 1999, and Mattison Johnson, born in 2001.
In 2011, Elicia initiated divorce proceedings in the Sarpy County District Court. The parties negotiated a property settlement agreement and a parenting plan, both of which were approved by the district court and incorporated in a decree dissolving the marriage.
Under the decree, Matthew and Elicia were granted joint legal custody of both children. Physical custody of Mattison was awarded to Elicia, with parenting time for Matthew. Physical custody of Kamren was awarded to Matthew, with parenting time for Elicia.
The decree contained a provision requiring Matthew to establish college savings plans for Kamren and Mattison. It provided as follows:
COLLEGE FUNDS FOR MINOR CHILDREN. [Matthew] shall establish college savings plans for the minor children as follows: [Matthew] shall have discretion as to the amount of contributions he makes in each year and the manner in which he invests his contributions, provided that the college account for each child is "fully funded" by the time that the child graduates from high school. Each child's account shall be considered "fully funded" at the point where its balance equals four (4) times the rate for undergraduate tuition, books, lab fees, and room and board at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in the year immediately following the child's graduation from high school. [Matthew] shall provide [Elicia] with documentation confirming that each account has been "fully funded" on or before the date of each child's graduation from high school.
Another provision of the decree concerned automobiles for the children. It required Matthew to provide each child with an automobile upon turning 16 years old. The automobiles were to be of the same age and the same or equivalent model. It further provided that Matthew was to pay for the automobiles’ registration, insurance, and repairs in addition to their purchase price.
In 2016, Matthew and Elicia asked the district court to approve a stipulated modification to the dissolution decree. The parties stipulated to changes in the parenting plan and Matthew's child support obligations. The stipulated order of modification also contained a provision addressing Matthew's obligation to pay for the children's automobile expenses. It provided that Matthew "shall be financially responsible for providing both Kamren and Mattison suitable, safe, working cars for the children and the auto insurance and maintenance for said cars."
In December 2019, Matthew filed a verified application for an order to show cause in which he asked the district court to find Elicia in contempt. He alleged that Elicia had consistently denied Matthew the parenting time with Mattison allotted to him by the decree.
In January 2020, Elicia filed a verified application for an order to show cause in which she asked the district court to find Matthew in contempt. In the application, Elicia alleged that Matthew had refused to pay for an automobile and automobile insurance for Mattison, refused to pay for Mattison's tuition and related expenses at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and refused to provide to Elicia documentation proving the college savings plan required by the decree was fully funded. Elicia contended that the decree required Matthew to take such actions, that his failure to do so was willful and malicious, and that he should be held in contempt.
In March 2020, the district court held a hearing on the parties’ contempt applications. At the hearing, Matthew testified that he had not had parenting time with Mattison since the summer of 2018, that Mattison did not respond to his attempts to communicate with her, and that he had no relationship with her. He testified that he believed Mattison had repudiated her relationship with him and that, as a result, he was no longer willing to pay for Mattison's college education or automobile expenses. Matthew testified that he had funds available to pay for Mattison's college tuition and related expenses, but admitted that he had not provided Elicia with documentation of such funds. He also testified that he had not received information regarding the specific expenses Elicia requested he pay until a few weeks before the hearing.
Mattison also testified at the hearing. She testified she was 18 years old and a student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She testified that when she went to Matthew's home for his scheduled parenting time, Matthew was often working or sleeping, and that she was not comfortable there. She admitted that at some point in 2018, she stopped going to Matthew's home during his scheduled parenting time. She also acknowledged that she had not communicated with Matthew and had not had a meaningful relationship with him for the last 1½ years. She testified that she did not trust him and that while she would be willing to go to counseling with him if he would agree, she did not otherwise want him to be a part of her life.
Elicia was the final witness at the hearing. During her testimony, the district court received into evidence spreadsheets itemizing the out-of-pocket expenses Elicia had incurred for Mattison's college education and automobile. The spreadsheets listed $12,715.43 in college expenses and $10,882.02 in automobile expenses. Elicia testified that she had notified Matthew of these expenses, but that he refused to pay them.
After the hearing, the district court entered an order. It rejected Matthew's argument that he should not be obligated to pay the expenses at issue because Mattison had repudiated him as her father. The district court explained that it found no authority under Nebraska law supporting the argument and that it contradicted longstanding Nebraska law requiring parents to provide support for their children until they reach the age of majority.
The district court went on to address the various reasons why Elicia contended that Matthew should be held in contempt. The district court found that the decree clearly required Matthew to pay the automobile expenses, but that because Matthew was only recently presented with the specific expenses Elicia requested, and because Matthew had no part in choosing the automobile in violation of the "intent and spirit" of the relevant decree provision, he was not in contempt. The district court clarified that while Matthew was not in contempt, he was still obligated to pay the automobile expenses under the decree.
The district court found the decree less clear regarding college expenses, pointing out that it lacked language specifying how or when the funds were to be disseminated. It observed that the evidence showed that Matthew had complied with the college savings plan provision to the extent that he had established a college savings account that was fully funded as defined by the decree. The district court found that Matthew had not, however, complied with the provision of the decree requiring that he provide Elicia with documentation of the account. It concluded that Matthew was in contempt for not providing this documentation, but not in contempt for failing to pay the expenses. The district court ordered Matthew to pay $10,882.02 for the automobile expenses and $12,715.43 for the college expenses. It ordered him to provide Elicia with documentation of the college savings account within 5 business days of its order.
The district court found that Elicia was in contempt for denying Matthew his parenting time.
Matthew appealed from the district court's order. Elicia did not appeal.
Matthew assigns three errors on appeal. He contends, reordered and restated, that the district court erred (1) by entering a damages award against him; (2) by ordering that he pay an unconditional fine; and (3) by failing to find that under the doctrine of repudiation, he owed no duty to pay the college or automobile expenses.
In a civil contempt proceeding where a party seeks remedial relief for an alleged violation of a court order, an appellate court employs a three-part standard of review in which (1) the trial court's resolution of issues of law is reviewed de novo, (2) the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and (3) the trial court's determinations of whether a party is in contempt and of the sanction to be imposed are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Yori v. Helms , 307 Neb. 375, 949 N.W.2d 325 (2020).
The meaning of a divorce decree presents a question of law, in connection with which an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the court below. Bayne v. Bayne , 302 Neb. 858, 925 N.W.2d 687 (2019).
Matthew's first two assignments of error are based on an incorrect understanding of the district court's order. Matthew asserts that the district court's order that he pay Mattison's college and automobile expenses was either a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Becher v. Becher
...parties to a suit when a party fails to comply with a court order made for the benefit of the opposing party. Johnson v. Johnson , 308 Neb. 623, 956 N.W.2d 261 (2021). When Mark paid the 2016 medical expenses, however late, there was nothing more that could be done to fulfill the requiremen......
-
Radmanesh v. Radmanesh
... ... [ 46 ] Parde, supra note 5 ... [ 47 ] Carlson v. Carlson , 299 ... Neb. 526, 909 N.W.2d 351 (2018). See, Johnson ... ...
-
Heimes v. Arens
... ... of whether a party is in contempt and of the sanction to be ... imposed are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Johnson v ... Johnson , 308 Neb. 623, 956 N.W.2d 261 (2021) ... ANALYSIS ... Effect ... of January 2017 Order ... ...
-
Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal
...960 N.W.2d at 314.6 See id.7 Id. at 383, 960 N.W.2d at 314.8 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2020).9 Johnson v. Johnson , 308 Neb. 623, 956 N.W.2d 261 (2021).10 Becher v. Becher, 311 Neb. 1, 970 N.W.2d 472 (2022).11 Johnson v. Johnson, supra note 9.12 Id.13 Bayne v. Bayne , 302......