Burns v. Burns (PFR)

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Burns v. Burns (PFR)

Case Number
S-14-0789
Call Date
April 25, 2016
Court Number
Adams
Case Summary

S-14-0789 Michael P. Burns v. Kerry E. Burns (Appellant)

Adams County District Court, Judge James E. Doyle IV

Attorneys: Robert Sullivan (Appellee) --- Matt Catlett (Appellant)

Civil: Custody

Proceedings below: The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, and remanded the cause with directions. See Burns v. Burns, 23 Neb. App. 420 (2015). Appellee filed a Petition for Further Review which was granted by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issues on Review: l. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to find that the issue of custody was reopened over a year before Appellee filed his Complaint to Modify when Appellee filed his Answer and Counterclaim. 2. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that case had been dismissed under Neb. Rev. St. ' 25-217, at the expiration of 6 months from the filing of the Complaint to Modify custody. 3. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to find that the Appellant had requested relief in the case within the first 6 months after the filings of the Complaint to Modify as evidenced in the trial court's Order of October 31, 2011. 4. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to find that Appellant's Special Appearance equitably tolled or suspended the 6 month time period in Neb. Rev. St. ' 25-217. 5. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to find that Appellant's Special Appearance and subsequent requests for relief conferred jurisdiction on the trial court. 6. The Court of Appeals erred in considering Appellant's appeal without the Bill of Exceptions requested by Appellant. 7. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to find that the District Court had continuing jurisdiction in the matter under Neb. Rev. St. ' 42-351(2), as the Appellant had appealed the trial court's decision and said appeal was pending at the time the Complaint to Modify was filed. 8. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to find that the Appellant had constructive or actual notice of the Complaint to Modify Custody and that said notice was sufficient to establish jurisdiction and deny Appellant's Special Appearance.