S-23-0649 Cynthia A. Parde (Appellant) v. Arlan D. Parde (Appellee)
Appeal from the District Court for Gage County, Judge Ricky A. Schreiner
Attorneys: John W. Ballew, Jr. and Steven D. Burns (Ballew Hazen Byrd, PC LLO for Appellant) and Terrence Poppe and Anne E. Brown (Morrow, Poppe, Watermeier & Lonowski, P.C. for Appellee)
Civil: Dissolution of Marriage
Proceedings below: In a previous appeal, this Court affirmed, as modified, and then remanded this case with directions. See Parde v. Parde, 313 Neb. 779, 986 N.W.2d 504 (2023). On remand, the district court entered an order that divided the assets of the parties and denied Appellant an evidentiary hearing finding it was outside the scope of the mandate.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The district court failed to comply with the mandate of the Nebraska Supreme Court by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing and equitably divide the marital estate; 2) In entering the Judgment on Remand and overruling the Motion to Vacate said judgment, the district court erred in determining sua sponte what constituted an equitable division of the marital property without allowing presentation of evidence given the almost three-year time from the time the case was originally tried to the present; 3) In a long-term marriage involving a retired farming couple, allowing only a husband to be awarded all appreciable, income producing property (farm ground) is inequitable and constitutes error; 4) The district court erred in its determination that the law-of-the-case doctrine applied because the Nebraska Supreme Court in Parde II did not make any determination of an equitable division of the marital estate. It simply redetermined the marital and non-marital value of the farm ground based on the rational of Stephens v. Stephens, 297 Neb. 188, 899 N.W.2d (2017) and directed the trial court to determine how the remaining property interests were to be valued and divided; 5) Even if the law-of-the-case doctrine applies here, the evidence that was a part of the offer of proof shows that there has been a material change in circumstances of the parties justifying an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine and the district court erred in not allowing the evidence or the offer of proof; and 6) The district court erred in overruling the Motion to Supplement the Bill of Exceptions filed by Plaintiff/Appellant herein.