Hall v. Hall

since such date pursuant to the more specific directions regard-
ing the necessary QDRO found above in our opinion. We
reverse and vacate the portion of the decree ordering Susan to
pay for Gary’s health insurance during the interlocutory period
and order Gary to reimburse Susan for any health insurance she
may have paid on his behalf since the decree was entered. We
affirm the remainder of the decree.
A ffirmed in pArt, Affirmed in pArt As modified,
And in pArt reversed And vAcAted.
BriAn L. HALL, AppeLLAnt, v.
K risten K. HALL, AppeLLee .
782 N.W.2d 339
Filed May 11, 2010. 	No. A-09-839.
1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question which does not
involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews questions of law
independently of the lower court’s conclusion.
3. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before reaching the legal issues presented for
review, it is the duty of an appellate court to settle jurisdictional issues presented
by a case.
4. ____: ____. Notwithstanding whether the parties raise the issue of jurisdiction,
an appellate court has a duty to raise and determine the issue of jurisdiction
sua sponte.
5. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court to acquire
jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final order entered by the court from
which the appeal is taken; conversely, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to
entertain appeals from nonfinal orders.
6. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. An order is final for purposes of appeal if it
affects a substantial right and (1) determines the action and prevents a judgment,
(2) is made during a special proceeding, or (3) is made on summary application
in an action after judgment is rendered.
Appeal from the District Court for Nemaha County: dAnieL
e. BryAn, Jr ., Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Louie M. Ligouri, of Ligouri Law Office, for appellant.
David J. Partsch, of Hoch, Partsch & Noerrlinger, for
appellee.
384 	18 NeBRASkA APPeLLAte RePORtS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:13 AM CST

inBody, Chief Judge, and moore and cAsseL, Judges.
cAsseL, Judge.
INtRODUCtION
In 2009, kristen k. Hall sought the enforcement of a pro-
vision in a 2005 dissolution decree which required her and
her former husband, Brian L. Hall, each to submit a quali-
fied domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing both parties’
retirement plan benefits. Brian appeals from a district court
order which required him to provide the court with a proposed
QDRO within 30 days. Because the order does not affect a
substantial right, it is not a final order and we lack jurisdiction
to hear this appeal.
BACkGROUND
the parties’ marriage was dissolved pursuant to a decree
dated November 4, 2005. the decree contained a provision
which provided as follows regarding the division of the parties’
retirement accounts:
RetIReMeNt 	AND 	IRA 	ACCOUNtS. 	the 	Court
orders that the parties[’] net retirement accounts held
by the Nebraska School Retirement System and the
Nebraska Public Power District shall be divided equally
between the parties. A [QDRO] shall be prepared by the
[p]arties. the parties may hire any professional needed
for preparation of a QDRO to carry out this provision.
the parties shall equally split the cost of any professional
needed. the date of the split of the accounts after their
separation but before this hearing has been agreed to by
the parties.
At the dissolution proceeding, the parties agreed to a date
for purposes of valuation, which was June 22, 2005. Retirement
account statements offered into evidence at the dissolution pro-
ceeding indicated the respective values of Brian’s and kristen’s
retirement accounts as of June 30.
Brian appealed the district court’s decision to this court in
case No. A-05-1443, and we affirmed the district court’s deci-
sion in a memorandum opinion filed on July 13, 2007.
HALL v. HALL 	385
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 384

the instant proceeding pertains to a May 4, 2009, “Motion
to Compel” kristen filed in which she requested that the court
enter an order compelling Brian to split the parties’ retirement
accounts as required by the dissolution decree.
At the hearing on the motion, counsel for both parties agreed
that kristen had cashed in her retirement account that was sub-
ject to the dissolution decree without any QDRO’s having been
entered. the record also contains documents which indicate
that Brian had requested that kristen agree to take half of his
retirement account as of June 30, 2005, less the amount Brian
was to receive from her retirement account, and adjusted for
the earnings and losses that accrued to the account since that
time. According to Brian’s counsel, Brian’s account sustained
losses after June 22.
On July 31, 2009, the court entered an order which stated
that Brian “has 30 days from the date of the filing of this
written order to file with the court the proper QDRO imple-
menting [the provisions of the dissolution decree] as set out
in the agreement of the parties and confirmed in this opinion.”
According to the order, the later QDRO was supposed to pro-
vide that kristen would receive half of Brian’s account bal-
ance as of June 30, 2005, minus the value of half of kristen’s
retirement account on the same date, or a total of $222,944.08.
It was also to provide for kristen to receive this amount from
Brian’s current account balance.
Brian filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court
denied, and Brian timely appeals from this order. Pursuant
to authority granted to this court under Neb. Ct. R. App. P.
§ 2-111(B)(1) (rev. 2008), this case was ordered submitted
without oral argument.
ASSIGNMeNtS OF eRROR
Although we do not reach Brian’s assigned errors, we note
that in general, Brian asserts that the court erred in (1) award-
ing kristen the value of half of his retirement account as
of June 30, 2005, when his account subsequently sustained
losses; (2) allowing kristen to retain her entire retirement
account which the dissolution decree required her to split; and
386 	18 NeBRASkA APPeLLAte RePORtS

(3) requiring Brian to provide the court with a QDRO that rem-
edied kristen’s violation of the original decree.
StANDARD OF ReVIeW
[1,2] A jurisdictional question which does not involve a
factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter
of law. Midwest PMS v. Olsen, 279 Neb. 492, 778 N.W.2d 727
(2010). An appellate court reviews questions of law indepen-
dently of the lower court’s conclusion. Id.
ANALYSIS
[3,4] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review,
it is the duty of an appellate court to settle jurisdictional
issues presented by a case. Connelly v. City of Omaha, 278
Neb. 311, 769 N.W.2d 394 (2009). Notwithstanding whether
the parties raise the issue of jurisdiction, an appellate court
has a duty to raise and determine the issue of jurisdiction sua
sponte. Id.
[5,6] Because we conclude that an order which directs a
party to draft a proposed QDRO is not a final, appealable order,
we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to hear the instant case.
For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal,
there must be a final order entered by the court from which the
appeal is taken; conversely, an appellate court is without juris-
diction to entertain appeals from nonfinal orders. Id. An order
is final for purposes of appeal if it affects a substantial right
and (1) determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2) is
made during a special proceeding, or (3) is made on summary
application in an action after judgment is rendered. Williams v.
Baird, 273 Neb. 977, 735 N.W.2d 383 (2007).
Because judgment has already been rendered in the dissolu-
tion decree, the order would fall within the third category of
possible final orders, i.e., an order made on summary applica-
tion in an action after judgment is rendered. thus, the critical
question is whether the district court’s order affected a substan-
tial right.
We have previously determined that we have jurisdiction
over appeals from a district court’s entry of a QDRO even
when the QDRO has been entered a number of years after the
HALL v. HALL 	387
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 384

dissolution decree. Fry v. Fry, 18 Neb. App. 75, 775 N.W.2d
438 (2009). We reached this conclusion because “[a] district
court has the inherent power to determine the status of its judg-
ments” and a QDRO is “simply an enforcement device of the
decree of dissolution.” Id. at 79, 775 N.W.2d at 442. therefore,
the entry of a QDRO affects a substantial right.
However, the district court order in the instant case does
not similarly affect a substantial right. We distinguish the
instant case from Fry v. Fry, supra, because the order before us
does not enforce the terms of the dissolution decree as does a
QDRO. the order simply requires the submission of a QDRO
which, if approved by the court, would enforce the decree. In
essence, the order does not place either of the parties in a posi-
tion substantially different from the position that either one
was in prior to the entry of the order because the pension funds
still are not divided.
In fact, the order impacts only a technical right and not a
substantial right because the court is not bound by its own
determinations contained in the order. Because the court’s
determinations do not effect a distribution of the parties’ assets,
during the interim between the entry of the instant order and
the later QDRO contemplated by the instant order, there would
be nothing to prevent the district court from changing its mind
regarding the content of the later order and none of the parties’
rights concerning division of the pension funds would have
been affected during the interim. Because no substantial right
is affected by the instant order, it is purely interlocutory and
not appealable.
CONCLUSION
Because there is no final order, we lack jurisdiction to con-
sider this appeal.
A ppeAL dismissed.
388 	18 NeBRASkA APPeLLAte RePORtS