Krejci v. Krejci , 304 Neb. 302 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    12/20/2019 09:07 AM CST
    - 302 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    304 Nebraska R eports
    KREJCI v. KREJCI
    Cite as 
    304 Neb. 302
    M ark S. K rejci, appellant, v.
    Christina K rejci, appellee.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed October 18, 2019.   No. S-18-908.
    1. Appeal and Error. As a threshold matter, an appellate court must
    determine what assignments of error were properly raised and argued
    on appeal.
    2. ____. The cross-appeal section of an appellate brief must set forth a
    separate title page, a table of contents, a statement of the case, assigned
    errors, propositions of law, and a statement of the facts, and when a brief
    of an appellee fails to present a proper cross-appeal, an appellate court
    declines to consider its merits.
    3. Contempt: Appeal and Error. 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 sanc-
    tion to be imposed is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
    4. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists when
    a judge, within the effective limits of authorized judicial power, elects
    to act or refrain from acting, but the selected option results in a deci-
    sion which is untenable and unfairly deprives a litigant of a substantial
    right or a just result in matters submitted for disposition through a judi-
    cial system.
    5. Contempt. Civil contempt proceedings are instituted to preserve and
    enforce the rights of private parties to a suit when a party fails to com-
    ply with a court order made for the benefit of the opposing party.
    6. Contempt: Words and Phrases. Willful disobedience is an essential
    element of contempt; “willful” means the violation was committed
    intentionally, with knowledge that the act violated the court order.
    - 303 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    304 Nebraska R eports
    KREJCI v. KREJCI
    Cite as 
    304 Neb. 302
    7. Contempt: Presumptions: Proof. Outside of statutory procedures
    imposing a different standard or an evidentiary presumption, all ele-
    ments of contempt must be proved by the complainant by clear and
    convincing evidence.
    8. Visitation: Statutes. In Nebraska, grandparent visitation is controlled
    by statute.
    9. Due Process: Notice. It is fundamental to due process that a person
    has reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard appropriate to the
    nature of the proceeding and the character of the rights which might be
    affected by it.
    Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J.
    Michael Coffey, Judge. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed
    and vacated.
    Edith T. Peebles, of Brodkey, Cuddigan, Peebles, Belmont &
    Line, L.L.P., for appellant.
    Barry S. Grossman for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
    Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
    Miller-Lerman, J.
    NATURE OF CASE
    After the father of two children passed away in 2014, the
    children’s paternal grandfather obtained a decree for grand-
    parent visitation in 2016. On one planned visit in 2018, the
    children refused to visit their grandfather and the mother
    was unable to compel them. The grandfather brought a civil
    contempt proceeding against the mother, and the mother filed
    a complaint for modification of grandparent visitation. With
    regard to the contempt proceeding, following a hearing, the
    Douglas County District Court found that the mother did not
    willfully and contumaciously violate the visitation decree.
    Although the court dismissed the complaint for modifica-
    tion and did not hold a separate hearing on modification, it
    ultimately modified the decree to, inter alia, reduce sum-
    mer visitation with the grandfather. The grandfather appeals,
    - 304 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    304 Nebraska R eports
    KREJCI v. KREJCI
    Cite as 
    304 Neb. 302
    and the mother attempts to cross-appeal. We affirm the dis-
    missal of the complaint for contempt but vacate the order of
    modification.
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    At the time the proceedings giving rise to this appeal were
    initiated, the minor children—a girl who was 15 years old and
    a boy who was 11 years old—lived in Nebraska with their
    mother, Christina Krejci. The biological father of the two chil-
    dren died in 2014. Following his death, Mark S. Krejci, the
    children’s paternal grandfather, sought and obtained a decree
    for grandparent visitation under 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1802
    (1)
    and (2) (Reissue 2016). The decree, filed in December 2016,
    ordered visitation that included 17 consecutive days each sum-
    mer and part of a weekend every 3 months, or as agreed in
    advance by the parties in writing. Mark and his wife live in
    Florida. Visits under the decree went smoothly until May
    19, 2018.
    Prior to the May 19, 2018, event from which this action
    arises, the parties made arrangements for Mark and his wife to
    visit. As planned, Mark and his wife flew to Omaha, Nebraska,
    in May 2018. However, the children informed Christina that
    they did not want to visit with the grandfather because May
    19 was the date of their deceased father’s birthday. The grand­
    father and his wife made several attempts to contact Christina
    to pick up the children, and Christina replied, generally, that
    the birthday was “a touchy day for all of [us]” and that she
    felt it was “hard . . . to force them to go somewhere they don’t
    want to [go]” and she did not want to “add to the[ir] pain.”
    The grandfather was ultimately unable to exercise his visita-
    tion on May 19.
    The grandfather brought a civil contempt proceeding and
    complaint for interference of visitation against Christina, and
    Christina filed a complaint for modification of the visitation
    decree. The district court dismissed the motion for modifica-
    tion on its own motion without holding a separate hearing
    - 305 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    304 Nebraska R eports
    KREJCI v. KREJCI
    Cite as 
    304 Neb. 302
    because it found that it lacked jurisdiction “to allow grandpar-
    ent visitation to take place or not take place upon the wishes of
    the minor children.”
    As part of the hearing on the civil contempt action to deter-
    mine whether Christina had willfully and contumaciously vio-
    lated the court’s visitation order, the granddaughter appeared
    in chambers. She testified that Christina had not told her not
    to visit her grandfather. She testified that on May 19, 2018,
    “I didn’t even want to be around my mom” and “I just think
    that on that day I should have been asked and not told” to
    have the visitation. She testified that she understood that her
    brother felt similarly. In addition to her objections to exercis-
    ing grandparent visitation on her father’s birthday, she gener-
    ally expressed that she did not wish to be out of town for as
    long in the summer as in the past because a lengthy visitation
    affected her ability to work a summer job, complete driver’s
    education classes, and participate in school activities. She
    testified in particular that she was not able to participate in
    cheerleading because of the grandparent visitation schedule.
    However, she acknowledged that visitation with her grand­
    father was an “important ingredient” to sustaining a relation-
    ship with him.
    The record also contained email and text message exchanges
    between Christina and Mark and Christina and Mark’s wife in
    which Christina raised concerns that the length of visitation
    was “a really long time for them to be gone.” Mark submitted
    photographs showing the vacations the children had enjoyed
    with him and correspondence showing his efforts to arrange
    the visitation according to the decree.
    In an order filed July 2, 2018, the district court found
    that Christina had not interfered with visitation and had not
    willfully and contumaciously violated the visitation decree.
    Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint for contempt
    and for interference of visitation. In the same order, the dis-
    trict court determined that in light of the children’s ages, the
    - 306 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    304 Nebraska R eports
    KREJCI v. KREJCI
    Cite as 
    304 Neb. 302
    children’s desire to remember their deceased father privately
    on his birthday, and the summer activities that children have
    as they get older, the decree of grandparent visitation should
    be modified. The order modified the decree so that future
    visitation would not include the date of the deceased father’s
    birthday or the anniversary of his death and that summer visi-
    tation would be reduced from 17 days to 8 days of continuous
    vacation visitation.
    Mark appeals, and Christina attempts to cross-appeal.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    On appeal, Mark claims, summarized and restated, that
    the district court erred when it (1) determined that Christina
    was not in contempt and (2) modified the decree of grandpar-
    ent visitation.
    [1,2] Christina also attempts to raise a cross-appeal related
    to her complaint to modify the decree. As a threshold matter,
    we must determine what assignments of error were properly
    raised and argued on appeal. In re Estate of Graham, 
    301 Neb. 594
    , 
    919 N.W.2d 714
     (2018). Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4)
    (rev. 2014) provides:
    Where the brief of appellee presents a cross-appeal, it
    shall be noted on the cover of the brief and it shall be set
    forth in a separate division of the brief. This division shall
    be headed “Brief on Cross-Appeal” and shall be prepared
    in the same manner and under the same rules as the brief
    of appellant.
    Thus, the cross-appeal section of an appellate brief must set
    forth a separate title page, a table of contents, a statement
    of the case, assigned errors, propositions of law, and a state-
    ment of the facts. In re Estate of Graham, 
    supra.
     However,
    Christina’s cross-appeal section fails to set forth a separate
    title page and a table of contents. When a brief of an appellee
    fails to present a proper cross-appeal pursuant to § 2-109, as in
    this case, we decline to consider its merits. See In re Estate of
    Graham, 
    supra.
    - 307 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    304 Nebraska R eports
    KREJCI v. KREJCI
    Cite as 
    304 Neb. 302
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [3,4] 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 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Martin v. Martin,
    
    294 Neb. 106
    , 
    881 N.W.2d 174
     (2016). A judicial abuse of
    discretion exists when a judge, within the effective limits of
    authorized judicial power, elects to act or refrain from acting,
    but the selected option results in a decision which is untenable
    and unfairly deprives a litigant of a substantial right or a just
    result in matters submitted for disposition through a judicial
    system. 
    Id.
    ANALYSIS
    Contempt.
    Mark claims that the district court erred when it determined
    that Christina was not in contempt of the decree of grandparent
    visitation as a result of the May 19, 2018, event. We find no
    merit to this assignment of error.
    [5-7] We recently described civil contempt proceedings as
    follows:
    Civil contempt proceedings are instituted to preserve
    and enforce the rights of private parties to a suit when
    a party fails to comply with a court order made for the
    benefit of the opposing party. See, Hossaini v. Vaelizadeh,
    
    283 Neb. 369
    , 
    808 N.W.2d 867
     (2012); Smeal Fire
    Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier, 
    279 Neb. 661
    , 
    782 N.W.2d 848
     (2010), disapproved on other grounds, Hossaini v.
    Vaelizadeh, supra. Willful disobedience is an essential
    element of contempt; “willful” means the violation was
    committed intentionally, with knowledge that the act
    violated the court order. Hossaini v. Vaelizadeh, supra.
    - 308 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    304 Nebraska R eports
    KREJCI v. KREJCI
    Cite as 
    304 Neb. 302
    Outside of statutory procedures imposing a different stan-
    dard or an evidentiary presumption, all elements of con-
    tempt must be proved by the complainant by clear and
    convincing evidence. See, id.; Smeal Fire Apparatus Co.
    v. Kreikemeier, 
    supra.
    Martin v. Martin, 
    294 Neb. at 117
    , 881 N.W.2d at 182.
    We are aware that a parent may use a child’s hesitation to
    visit a noncustodial person as a subterfuge for contumaciously
    interfering with the visitation. Mark relies on the event of
    May 19, 2018, to establish his claim of contempt. However, in
    Martin, we observed that a “singular event,” which is not in
    accordance with a court decree, may be defensible. Id. at 119,
    881 N.W.2d at 183. Except for this event, the record shows
    that grandparent visitation had gone smoothly. To illustrate
    this history, we refer to the order dismissing the contempt
    complaint in which the district court found “[e]vidence was
    also adduced that as recently as March of 2018 [the grand-
    daughter] traveled to Florida to visit with her grandfather over
    spring break. Her brother was unable to attend because of a
    recent ear surgery.” This case presents a singular event, but
    not a pattern.
    The district court heard the evidence and stated that the
    “primary reason” for the failure of grandparent visitation was
    the fact that it was scheduled on the deceased father’s birthday,
    which the court described as an “upsetting day.”
    In its order, the district court stated: “[The granddaughter]
    testified that she and her brother were very upset because the
    visitation was to take place on the birthday of their deceased
    father. She further testified that her mother, [Christina], did in
    no way encourage them not to participate in the visitation.”
    The district court accepted this testimony and did not err in
    doing so. The district court specifically found that with respect
    to the granddaughter, “[i]t definitely was her decision not
    to visit.”
    While we do not endorse the proposition that the responsi-
    bility for adhering to a visitation plan devolves to the children,
    - 309 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    304 Nebraska R eports
    KREJCI v. KREJCI
    Cite as 
    304 Neb. 302
    a logical conclusion which results from the district court’s
    findings in this contempt case is that Christina did not encour-
    age or instruct the minor children to refuse to participate in
    the grandparent visitation. The district court viewed the event
    of May 19, 2018, in the overall context of a general history
    of compliance with the decree and the unusual circumstances
    of that particular day persuaded it that Christina’s failure to
    strictly enforce the terms of the order on that date was not will-
    ful. The district court’s determination that Christina was not in
    contempt was not an abuse of discretion.
    Modification.
    Mark claims that the district court erred when it modified
    the grandparent visitation decree in its order filed after the
    contempt hearing. Given the procedural history of this case, we
    find merit to this assignment of error. Accordingly, we reverse
    that portion of the order of July 2, 2018, which modified
    the decree of grandparent visitation, and we vacate the order
    of modification.
    [8] At common law in Nebraska and elsewhere, “‘“grand-
    parents lacked any legal right to visitation and communication
    with their grandchildren if such visitation was forbidden by the
    parents . . . . Indeed, the parents’ obligation to allow such visi-
    tation was a moral, not a legal obligation.”’” Hamit v. Hamit,
    
    271 Neb. 659
    , 673, 
    715 N.W.2d 512
    , 525 (2006), quoting Pier
    v. Bolles, 
    257 Neb. 120
    , 
    596 N.W.2d 1
     (1999). However, every
    state has adopted a statutory scheme permitting grandparent
    visitation under varying circumstances
    [i]n part due to changing demographics and the presence
    of single-parent households in which grandparents and
    other persons “outside the nuclear family are called upon
    with increasing frequency to assist in the everyday tasks
    of child rearing,” Troxel v. Granville, 
    530 U.S. 57
    , 64,
    
    120 S. Ct. 2054
    , 
    147 L. Ed. 2d 49
     (2000), and in part due
    to a recognition of “the importance of the grandparent-
    grandchild relationship in the lives of children,” Moriarty
    - 310 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    304 Nebraska R eports
    KREJCI v. KREJCI
    Cite as 
    304 Neb. 302
    v. Bradt, 
    177 N.J. 84
    , 97, 
    827 A.2d 203
    , 210 (2003), cert.
    denied 
    540 U.S. 1177
    , 
    124 S. Ct. 1408
    , 
    158 L. Ed. 2d 78
    (2004) . . . .
    Hamit v. Hamit, 
    271 Neb. at 673-74
    , 
    715 N.W.2d at 525
    .
    Thus, in Nebraska, grandparent visitation is controlled by
    statute. 
    Id.
    Modification of grandparent visitation may be ordered pur-
    suant to § 43-1802(3), which provides: “The court may modify
    an order granting or denying such visitation upon a showing
    that there has been a material change in circumstances which
    justifies such modification and that the modification would
    serve the best interests of the child.” Because we determine,
    as explained below, that the process by which the district court
    modified the grandparent visitation plan was flawed in this
    case, we do not address the propriety of combining contempt
    and modification of grandparent visitation in one hearing upon
    proper notice.
    As explained in our statement of facts, Christina filed a
    complaint to modify the decree of grandparent visitation on
    June 21, 2018. An evidentiary hearing on Mark’s complaint
    for contempt was conducted on June 28. The district court dis-
    missed Christina’s complaint to modify on its own motion on
    July 2, because it found that it lacked jurisdiction. The result
    of the evidentiary hearing on Mark’s complaint for contempt
    was contained in the district court’s order of July 2, in which it
    dismissed the complaint but proceeded to modify the decree of
    grandparent visitation.
    Mark contends in general that he did not receive proper
    notice that modification would be considered at the hearing
    of June 28, 2018, and in particular that he was denied the
    opportunity to present certain evidence that would have per-
    tained to modification. The record is consistent with Mark’s
    contentions.
    [9] It is fundamental to due process that a person has rea-
    sonable notice and an opportunity to be heard appropriate to
    the nature of the proceeding and the character of the rights
    - 311 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    304 Nebraska R eports
    KREJCI v. KREJCI
    Cite as 
    304 Neb. 302
    which might be affected by it. See Fetherkile v. Fetherkile,
    
    299 Neb. 76
    , 
    907 N.W.2d 275
     (2018). The procedural record
    in this case shows that the district court effectively dismissed
    Christina’s complaint to modify prior to the contempt hear-
    ing and that it was reasonable for the parties to conclude that
    modification was off the table. In fact, the bill of exceptions
    shows that the court stated at the commencement of the hear-
    ing on June 28, 2018, that the purpose of the hearing was to
    consider Mark’s complaint for contempt.
    We agree with Mark’s contention that under the circum-
    stances of this case, the court’s consideration and determina-
    tion of modification as a consequence of the contempt hearing
    were improper due to a lack of notice and an opportunity to be
    heard. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order of July
    2, 2018, which modified the decree of grandparent visitation,
    and we vacate the order of modification.
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons explained above, we affirm the district
    court’s ruling dismissing Mark’s complaint for contempt but
    we reverse the portion of the order which modified the decree
    of grandparent visitation and vacate the order of modification.
    A ffirmed in part, and in part
    reversed and vacated.