Background
Daniel and Gabrielle Nero married in 2011 and have four minor children, two of whom were adopted. Gabrielle filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and Daniel was personally served in July 2023. When the case came to trial in Douglas County District Court on June 26, 2025, both parties had counsel present, but Daniel himself failed to appear. The court proceeded and entered a decree dissolving the marriage that same day.
The decree awarded Gabrielle sole legal and physical custody of the four children, ordered Daniel to pay $1,216 per month in child support, and awarded Gabrielle the monthly adoption subsidy from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. Daniel, proceeding pro se on appeal, challenged both the entry of the decree in his absence and the child support calculation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on both issues. On the due process claim, the court held that notice to Daniel’s attorney of record constituted notice to Daniel himself, satisfying the constitutional requirements of reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The court further noted that Daniel provided no record evidence supporting his assertion that his trial counsel failed to inform him of the trial date, and that the district court’s decree — which the court treated as importing absolute verity — affirmatively stated Daniel was represented by counsel at trial.
On the child support issue, the court held that Daniel’s failure to request a complete bill of exceptions was fatal to his appeal. Because Daniel requested only the dissolution decree itself — not the trial transcript or exhibits — the appellate court was required to presume that the evidence before the district court supported the $1,216 monthly obligation. Without a record of the evidence actually considered below, the court could not evaluate Daniel’s claims that his Social Security Disability Income, Gabrielle’s adoption subsidy, or the actual custodial arrangement were ignored.
Key Takeaways
- In Nebraska, notice to a party’s attorney of record constitutes notice to the party for procedural due process purposes, and counsel’s presence at trial satisfies the opportunity-to-be-heard requirement even if the party is personally absent.
- An appellant who challenges a child support calculation must include in the bill of exceptions the evidentiary record considered by the trial court; without it, the appellate court presumes the evidence supported the lower court’s order.
- Allegations that trial counsel failed to communicate a hearing date — unsupported by anything in the record — will not be considered on appeal, as the burden is on the appellant to provide a record supporting assigned errors.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces two practical realities for family law practitioners in Nebraska. First, a party who skips trial cannot later claim a due process violation simply because counsel — not the party personally — received notice and appeared; the constitutional floor is satisfied when counsel is present. Second, the opinion is a sharp reminder of the procedural consequences of an incomplete record on appeal: a litigant who disputes the financial inputs to a child support calculation must ensure the trial evidence is part of the appellate record, or the challenge will be presumed meritless.
Because the opinion is designated as a non-precedential memorandum web opinion under Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-102(E), it may not be cited as binding authority in Nebraska courts, but it illustrates how the court applies well-settled principles from published decisions such as Sulzle v. Sulzle, 318 Neb. 194 (2024), and William P. v. Jamie P., 313 Neb. 378 (2023).