Cohrs v. Bruns

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Cohrs v. Bruns

Case Number
A-14-0740
Call Date
October 14, 2015
Case Time
1:00 PM
Case Summary

A-14-0740, Lana S. Bruns (Appellant) v. Dan Cohrs (Cross-Appellant)

District Court for Douglas County, District Judge Duane C. Dougherty

Attorney for Appellant: Stephanie W. Milone

Attorney for Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Jon J. Puk (Woodke & Gibbons Law Firm)

Civil Action: Child custody and child support modification.

Action taken by the Trial Court: The trial court awarded legal and physical custody of Dan and Lana's minor child to Lana, increased and modified parenting time allotted to Dan, removed the 'right of first refusal' with regard to the care of the minor child, terminated any restrictive provisions on Dan or his family during visitation with the minor child, increased the amount of Dan's monthly child support obligation and applied the increase retroactively to November 1, 2012, abated Dan's child support during his extended summer parenting time, denied Lana's request to find that Dan committed fraud in the original calculation of child support, granted Dan the child dependent tax exemption for the minor child on alternating years beginning in 2015, denied Lana's request that Dan pay for the private education of the minor child, denied Lana's request to remove the minor child from Nebraska to Colorado, and ordered continued counseling for the minor child.

Assignments of Error and Issues on Appeal: Did the trial court err in increasing and modifying Dan's parenting time and denying Lana's requests to change the transition time? Did the trial court err in denying Lana's requests that Dan be prohibited from allowing the minor child and another minor child from Dan's marriage to share a bedroom, that Dan's wife be prohibited from being present during the minor child's visits, that a restraining order be entered to prohibit derogatory comments in the minor child's presence, and that Lana be given a 'right of first refusal' to care for the minor child? Did the trial court err in calculating the modified child support obligation? Did the trial court err in allowing 80 percent abatement of Dan's child support obligation during his summer parenting time? Did the trial court err in not making Dan's increased child support obligation retroactive to the date Lana filed her modification complaint? Did the trial court err in not ordering Dan to pay for the minor child's private school expenses? Did the trial court err in alternating the child dependent tax exemption for the minor child between Lana and Dan? Did the trial court err in ordering the minor child to continue counseling? Did the trial court err in sustaining Dan's objection to admission of Lana's cell phone conversation recordings? Did the trial court err in not awarding attorney fees to Lana? Did the trial court err in not holding that Dan committed fraud and not modifying his child support obligation to the date of the original March 14, 2005 paternity decree to counteract the alleged fraud? Did the trial court err in denying Lana's request to remove the minor child to Colorado?

Assignments of Error and Issues on Cross-Appeal: Did the trial court err in denying Dan's request that his parenting time during Wednesday visitation extend overnight from Wednesday after school, or 3:30 p.m. if no school, until Dan drops the minor child off at school Thursday morning, or returns the minor child to Lana at 7:30 am if no school?

Case Location
Lincoln
Panel Text
Moore, Chief Judge, Pirtle, and Bishop, Judges