Jones v. Belgum

bound by the language contained in the specific statutes under
which Barbara sought a protection order.
In our de novo review, we find that the facts Barbara alleged
in the present case do not constitute abuse within the con-
templation of § 42-903 (Reissue 2008). As such, the record
does not support the district court’s entry of a protection
order pursuant to § 42-924. Accordingly, we conclude that the
district court’s order affirming the domestic abuse protection
order should be reversed, and we direct the district court to
enter an order dismissing the domestic abuse protection order
against Kurt.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we reverse, and remand
with directions to vacate the protection order against Kurt and
dismiss the action.
R eveRsed and Remanded with diRections.
Joshua m. Jones , appellant, v.
Jillian Z. Belgum , appellee .
770 N.W.2d 667
Filed June 30, 2009. 	No. A-09-200.
1. Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court: Records: Appeal and Error.
The record on appeal from an order imposing or modifying child support shall
include any applicable Nebraska Child Support Guidelines worksheets with the
trial court’s order. Failure to include such worksheets in the record will result in
summary remand of the trial court’s order.
2. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. After an appeal to an appellate court has been
perfected in a civil case, a lower court is without jurisdiction to hear a case
involving the same matter between the same parties.
Appeal 	from 	the 	District 	Court 	for 	Lancaster 	County:
RoBeRt R. otte, Judge. Motion overruled, and cause remanded
with direction.
Kelly T. Shattuck, of Vacanti Shattuck, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
750 	17 NeBRASKA AppeLLATe RepORTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:15 AM CST

inBody, Chief Judge, and sieveRs and cassel, Judges.
cassel, Judge.
This matter comes before us on Joshua M. Jones’ motion
requesting a second extension of his brief due date. He seeks
an extension so that he may obtain a child support calculation
worksheet from the district court, because the court did not
include such a worksheet with its order.
[1] Recently, in Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301, 308,
761 N.W.2d 922, 927 (2009), the Nebraska Supreme Court
declared that “effective upon the filing of this opinion, the
record on appeal from an order imposing or modifying child
support shall include any applicable worksheets with the trial
court’s order. Failure to include such worksheets in the record
will result in summary remand of the trial court’s order.” Jones’
motion asserts that the court’s order—entered prior to release
of Rutherford—failed to include a child support worksheet. We
are bound by Rutherford to summarily remand the matter to the
district court.
[2] Jones’ motion seeks to save the appeal by obtain-
ing the necessary worksheet from the district court, includ-
ing the worksheet in the appellate record, and then making
arguments before this court. Generally, after an appeal to an
appellate court has been perfected in a civil case, a lower
court is without jurisdiction to hear a case involving the
same matter between the same parties. In re Guardianship &
Conservatorship of Woltemath, 268 Neb. 33, 680 N.W.2d 142
(2004). Because the filing of the notice of appeal divests the
district court of jurisdiction—with some exceptions which do
not appear applicable to the situation here—we overrule Jones’
motion and remand the matter to the district court with direc-
tion to prepare the applicable child support worksheet. Once
the district court has completed the worksheet, filing a new
appeal will be necessary.
While the delay and additional expense associated with this
remand are unfortunate, there is a procedural tool—a motion
to alter or amend a judgment—readily available to “avoid an
expensive and time-consuming remand from the appellate court
for preparation of child support worksheets.” Moore v. Bauer,
JONeS v. BeLGUM 	751
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 750

11 Neb. App. 572, 581, 657 N.W.2d 25, 33 (2003) (Sievers,
Judge, concurring). We emphasize the importance of using this
procedural device in the future.
motion oveRRuled, and cause
Remanded with diRection.
752 	17 NeBRASKA AppeLLATe RepORTS