Rosberg v. Rosberg, A-18-790.

KELLY R. ROSBERG, APPELLEE, v. PAUL A. ROSBERG, APPELLANT.

No. A-18-790.

NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

October 15, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

(Memorandum Web Opinion)

NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

Appeal from the District Court for Knox County: PAUL J. VAUGHAN, Judge. Affirmed.

Paul A. Rosberg, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

RIEDMANN, BISHOP, and ARTERBURN, Judges.

BISHOP, Judge.

Paul A. Rosberg, pro se, appeals from an order of the Knox County District Court denying his motions to hold Kelly R. Rosberg in contempt for various parenting time issues. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

DIVORCE DECREE

Pursuant to a divorce decree entered by the district court on July 28, 2017, Kelly received legal and physical custody of the parties' minor children, subject to Paul's reasonable rights of parenting time. The parenting plan provided parenting time for Paul every other weekend from Friday at 6 p.m. to Sunday at 6 p.m., 2 continuous weeks during the school summer vacation, and it established a holiday parenting time schedule. Paul was to pay Kelly child support in the amount of $2,453 per month for the five children who were still minors commencing August 1. Paul was also ordered to pay Kelly alimony in the amount of $500 per month for 36 months commencing August 1. Paul filed his notice of appeal in the divorce case on August 27, 2017. Following numerous delays from requests for extensions of time related to the preparation of the record and briefs, the matter was submitted to this court and we affirmed the decree as modified (modification related to value of marital estate and equalization payment). See Rosberg v. Rosberg, No. A-17-909, 2019 WL 1906234 (Neb. App. Apr. 30, 2019) (selected for posting to court website). Paul filed a petition for further review with the Nebraska Supreme Court; that petition was denied on August 5, 2019.

CURRENT APPEAL

Paul filed numerous motions in the district court after the divorce decree was entered on July 28, 2017, and while the appeal of the decree was pending.

On November 21, 2017, Paul filed a "Motion for protection order and request that Kelly have supervised visitation and that Kelly be ordered to stay 500 feet from Paul['s] . . . residence." In his "Motion," which also included an "Affidavit" heading, Paul sought, in part, "a protection order that gives him full custody of the minor children." He also asked for a trial by jury.

On December 1, 2017, the district court issued an order on attorney's fees. Knox County was ordered to pay the attorney fees and expenses ($2,349.60) to Paul's court-appointed attorney (in a previous contempt action). However, the court ordered Paul to reimburse Knox County for the payment of those fees and expenses after finding, "based upon the financial records received during the trial in this matter, that [Paul] is not indigent and has sufficient assets to reimburse Knox County for payment of fees." Paul filed a motion to reconsider on December 11; the disposition of this motion, if any, does not appear in our record.

On December 19, 2017, Paul filed a "Motion in response to Kelly Rosberg false statement Motion requesting Kelly Rosberg stop harassing [Paul]."

On March 5, 2018, Paul filed a motion for sole custody of one of the parties' children, claiming that child had been living with him since September 2017.

On March 23, 2018, Paul filed a "Motion to have a trial in regards to [named judge's] unlawful order of December 1, 2017," regarding whether Paul was obligated to reimburse Knox County for attorney fees. He also asked the court to have "all his other motions heard," including his motion filed on November 21, 2017, which we set forth above.

On May 15, 2018, Paul filed a "Motion for Contempt Citation," seeking a show cause order against Kelly, and alleging she failed to allow his court-ordered parenting time. More specifically, in the affidavit attached to and incorporated into his motion, Paul stated that he had not been able to see his three youngest children since July 2015. He also made numerous other accusations regarding Kelly and the district court judge.

On May 21, 2018, Paul filed a document seeking the judge's recusal from the case.

On June 4, 2018, Paul filed a "Motion to have all of [his] Motions heard before This Common Law Court." In that motion, he requested a jury to have all his motions heard, including his request to have full custody of the children.

On June 5, 2018, the district court entered an order stating that Paul had previously demanded jury trials and had been told he was not entitled to a jury in a divorce proceeding or any related matters in the divorce proceeding; the district court denied his request to have pending matters heard before a jury. The order indicates that it scheduled Paul's "contempt motion" for hearing on June 15 at 10 a.m., and the court would "hear that motion only"; "Other matters which have been filed by the parties during the pendency of the Appeal cannot be heard by the Court until the Appeal is completed." (As noted previously, that appeal was decided by this court on April 30, 2019, and Paul's petition for further review to the Nebraska Supreme Court was denied on August 5.) The district court stated, however, that it did still have jurisdiction over contempt proceedings.

On June 15, 2018, Paul filed a motion for reconsideration of the "unlawful" June 5 order, claiming the judge "is once again committing Treason" by violating his right to a jury trial. He stated that "[the judge] can stop acting stupid," and that it was error for the court to stop the clerk of the court from convening a jury pool.

On June 20, 2018, Paul filed a "Motion for Contempt Citation," seeking a contempt of court order related to parenting time. In an affidavit attached to the motion, he claimed he was unable to attend the June 15 hearing (on a "contempt motion") because of an issue between two of his children. He also claimed he "prepaired [sic] [his] Special Appearance paper in a hurry and took them to Center and had Them There at 8:30 AM anticapating [sic] serious problems with [the two children]." In his affidavit he stated that he "sent several requests that [he] be allowed summer visitation and Kelly has not allowed it." He also made numerous other claims and accusations regarding Kelly and the district court judge, and he attached other affidavits and letters that had been previously attached to his May 15 motion for contempt.

On July 12, 2018, Paul filed a "Motion for Motion for Contempt Citation That was filed on June 20, 2018 To be heard and Issuance of Order seting [sic] show cause hearing date. Protection Hearing." (Underscoring in original.) He attached an affidavit which he claimed conclusively showed Kelly was in contempt of court, and he requested "that there be a protection hearing set to hear the issue." He also requested that one of his sons not be allowed to have access to guns or brass knuckles, and that Kelly should not be allowed to have a handgun in her house or vehicles where the children are able to play with them. He also requested full custody of the children. In the affidavit attached to his motion, Paul said he was supposed to have visitation with the children the weekend of July 6, but one of his children did not attend, so "[o]nce again, Kelly prevented [him] from having visitation with all [his] children as ordered by the divorce decree." He also stated that Kelly "has not, as of yet, allowed [him] to have the summer visitation time" awarded to him in the decree. Additionally, he also made numerous other claims and accusations regarding two of his children, Kelly, and the district court judge.

On July 31, 2018, Paul filed a "Motion for 'Motion for Contempt Citation' that was filed on 6/20/2018, Motion for 'Motion of Contempt Citation", that was filed on 6/20/2018 to be Heard, and 'Issuance of an Order Setting Show Cause Hearing Date and Protection Order Hearing") that was filed on 7/12/2018." (Underscoring in original.) In the motion, which also included an "Affidavit" heading, he stated that Kelly "prevented [him] from having visitation with the children, with the exception of [one named child] until the weekend starting May 1, 2018." However, one of his daughters did not attend visits during two weekends in May, a different daughter did not attend a visit during one weekend in July, and one of his sons did not attend a visit during a different weekend in July. "Even now, since Kelly has been allowing weekend visitation, she has been preventing [Paul] from having visitation with all of the children," which is in violation of the court order. Paul again stated that Kelly had not allowed his summer visitation. And once again, he also made numerous other claims and accusations regarding Kelly and the district court judge.

On August 7, 2018, Paul filed a "Motion for Contempt Citation." In his affidavit, Paul stated that Kelly prevented him from having visitation the weekend of August 3, and that she had refused to allow him to have his 2 weeks of summer visitation.

On August 14, 2018, the district court entered the order from which Paul appeals in this case. The order references the motion filed by Paul on July 31, "requesting hearings on several contempt matters that [Paul] has previously filed." The court noted it had issued a show cause order and was present for the hearing scheduled on June 15 to take up Paul's motion for contempt. The court further noted that Paul was in the courthouse earlier that day (June 15) to file his "Appearance Though [sic] Special Appearance" (not in our record) in the contempt matter, but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. The court stated:

Due to the fact [Paul] failed to appear, the Court is unwilling to schedule any further contempt matters by [Paul] while the appeal in this matter is pending. The Court is unwilling to allow [Paul

...