Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal
| Decision Date | 28 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-21-736. |
| Parties | Eric J. VYHLIDAL, appellant, v. Nessa A. VYHLIDAL, appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Loralea L. Frank and Nathan P. Husak, of Bruner, Frank, Schumacher & Husak, L.L.C., for appellant.
Michele J. Romero and Vikki S. Stamm, of Stamm, Romero & Associates, P.C., L.L.O., Kearney, for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller- Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
An integrated marital dissolution decree, settlement agreement, and parenting plan granted joint legal and physical custody of a minor child to Eric J. Vyhlidal and Nessa A. Vyhlidal. Over Eric's objection and without obtaining a modification of the decree, Nessa moved the child to another school in a distant town. The district court declined Eric's request for a contempt citation. On appeal, we reversed the denial and remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing.1
After issuing the citation and holding an evidentiary hearing on remand, the court below found no violation or willfulness. Eric again appeals. We conclude that the district court erred in its interpretation of the decree and its assessment of Nessa's actions. We reverse the order and remand the cause with directions and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Our background section consists of four parts. We begin by reciting pertinent conclusions from our first opinion. Second, we summarize the essential facts elicited at the evidentiary hearing. We then recall specific provisions of the integrated decree. Finally, we summarize the district court's decision and reasoning.
In the parties’ prior appeal, we determined that the district court abused its discretion in denying Eric's motion for an order to show cause.2 After citing the definition in the Parenting Act3 of "[j]oint legal custody,"4 we stated:
Here, the parenting plan, developed by the parties and approved by the court, clearly indicates that the parties were to share joint legal custody of the minor child, and neither party was granted exclusive final decisionmaking authority. As a result, it is undisputed that the parties share mutual authority for making fundamental decisions regarding the minor child's welfare, including choices regarding education, such as where the minor child will attend school.5
We also noted that we had classified the decision of where a child will attend school as a fundamental decision.6
We concluded that the denial of Eric's motion for an order to show cause was an abuse of discretion that unfairly deprived Eric of his rights as a joint legal custodian of the minor child. We stated: "Whether Nessa's unilateral decision to change the child's school is a willful violation of the decree ... is a matter to be considered at an evidentiary hearing where Eric can offer evidence to demonstrate both that a violation of the court order occurred and that the violation was willful."7 Thus, we reversed, and remanded for further proceedings.
After spreading our mandate, the district court set the matter for a hearing. It ordered Nessa to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court for willful violation of the decree.
After the hearing, the court characterized the facts as "simple and relatively undisputed." In late June 2020, Nessa informed Eric that she intended to move the child's residence and change the child's school. Eric objected. Nessa proceeded with moving and enrolling the child in a new school. She moved from Burwell, Nebraska, to Springfield, Nebraska, on August 8. She moved the child there on August 12. Two days later, she then enrolled the child in the Springfield school. Nessa admitted that she did so without Eric's permission.
The parties attended mediation. Nessa testified that she "submitted paperwork for Central Mediation" in June 2020. The parties’ mediation session occurred, using video conferencing, on September 14. They failed to reach an agreement.
At the hearing, Nessa argued that she complied with the parenting plan. Her position rested on two facts: She notified Eric that she planned to change the child's residence prior to doing so and attempted to reach an agreement through mediation.
A June 2018 decree dissolved the parties’ marriage. The decree awarded them "joint legal and physical custody" of their child, born in 2013. The decree further ordered the parties to abide by the terms of their mediated parenting plan that was attached to a marital settlement agreement. The marital settlement agreement stated that the parties agreed to "share legal and joint physical custody ... as outlined in the Parenting Plan."
The settlement agreement contained an integration clause. Paragraph 12 stated, in pertinent part, that it "constitute[d] a complete agreement and any and all other agreements, whether written or oral, which precede the date as set forth below are hereinafter superseded and are null and void."
The parenting plan contained several provisions directly applicable to this appeal, which focuses on legal custody. Those provisions are as follows:
In this appeal, the parties dispute the nature of their legal custody of their child—particularly, decisionmaking regarding the child's school and residence. Physical custody, parenting time, and the change of a parent's residence are largely irrelevant here.
But for the sake of completeness, we quote the parenting plan provisions directly bearing on physical custody, parenting time, and parent's residence, as follows:
The district court entered an order finding that Nessa did not violate the parenting plan. It therefore vacated the order to show cause.
The court's rationale relied upon its interpretation of the decree, which focused on the parenting plan. The court reasoned:
The district court further stated:
The parties’ description of "joint legal custody," the court reasoned, required discussion between the parties and was silent on mutual authority and the parties’ responsibility for making mutual fundamental decisions regarding the child's welfare. The court, essentially adopting Nessa's argument, determined that Eric failed to establish Nessa violated the parenting plan—reasoning that Nessa told Eric she was moving, that they discussed the move, and that they attempted to mediate a solution.
The district court, for the sake of completeness, discussed the willful aspect of contempt. The court determined that the violation had to be committed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kucirek v. Reinert
...of whether a party is in contempt and of the sanction to be imposed are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 311 Neb. 495, 973 N.W.2d 171 (2022). In an action for modification of a marital dissolution decree, an award of attorney fees is discretionary with the trial court......
-
Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal
...311 Neb. 495 Eric J. Vyhlidal, appellant, v. Nessa A. Vyhlidal, appellee. No. S-21-736Supreme Court of NebraskaApril 28, 1. Divorce: Judgments: Appeal and Error. The meaning of a divorce decree presents a question of law, in connection with which an appellate court reaches a conclusion inde......
-
Mackiewicz v. Mackiewicz
...[1] Grothen v. Grothen, 308 Neb. 28, 952 N.W.2d 650 (2020). [2] Id. [3] Id. [4] Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 311 Neb. 495, 973 N.W.2d 171 (2022). [5] Id. [6] Id. [7] Id. [8] See Grothen v. Grothen, supra note 1. [9] Desjardins v. Desjardins, 239 Neb. 878, 479 N.W.2d 451 (1992). [10] Id. at 882, 47......
-
Anton v. Anton
... ... court order, and increasing Lance's parenting time. See ... Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal , 311 Neb. 495, 973 N.W.2d 171 ... (2022) (holding that joint legal custody means mutual ... authority and responsibility of ... ...