- 264 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

DYLAN H. V. BROOKE C.

Cite as 317 Neb. 264

Dylan H., plaintiff and third-party plaintiff, 

appellee, v. Brooke C., defendant and 

third-party defendant, appellant, and 

Brandon B., third-party defendant, 

intervenor-appellant.

___ N.W.3d ___

Filed July 26, 2024. No. S-23-673.

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. ____: ____. Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is 

the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction 

over the matter before it.

3. Statutes: Appeal and Error. The right of appeal in Nebraska is purely 

statutory, and unless a statute provides for an appeal, such right does 

not exist.

4. Actions: Judgments: Parties: Appeal and Error. When “an action” 

presents more than one “claim for relief” or involves multiple parties, 

and the court enters an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims 

or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1315(1) (Reissue 2016) is implicated, and to become appealable, 

the order must comply with the requirements of certification of an 

appeal in § 25-1315(1).

5. Actions: Words and Phrases. For purposes of determining whether 

a case presents more than one “claim for relief” under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1315(1) (Reissue 2016), the term is not synonymous with an issue 

or theory of recovery, but is instead the equivalent of a cause of action.

6. Actions: Parties: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Where Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 25-1315 (Reissue 2016) is implicated, one may bring an appeal 

pursuant to such section only when (1) multiple causes of action or 

multiple parties are present, (2) the court enters a “final order” within 

the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022) as to one 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

07/26/2024 09:06 AM CDT
- 265 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

DYLAN H. V. BROOKE C.

Cite as 317 Neb. 264

or more but fewer than all of the causes of action or parties, and (3) the 

trial court expressly directs the entry of such final order and expressly 

determines that there is no just reason for delay of an immediate appeal.

7. Claims: Parties: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. In cases where 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) (Reissue 2016) is implicated, and no more 

specific statute governs the appeal, an order resolving fewer than all 

claims against all parties is not final and appealable if it lacks proper 

§ 25-1315 certification. This is so even if the order otherwise satisfies 

one of the final order categories in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902(1) (Cum. 

Supp. 2022).

Appeal from the District Court for Nemaha County, Julie D. 

Smith, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Angelo M. Ligouri, of Ligouri Law Office, for appellants.

Ryan K. McIntosh, of Brandt, Horan, Hallstrom & Stilmock, 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Miller-Lerman, J.

NATURE OF CASE

Dylan H. initiated a proceeding against Brooke C., the 

natural mother of P.C., a minor child, to establish paternity. 

Brooke’s partner, Brandon B., intervened based on his allegation that because he had signed a notarized acknowledgment 

of paternity, he was P.C.’s father. Thereafter, Dylan filed a 

verified third-party complaint in this action under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 43-1409 (Reissue 2016) against Brooke and Brandon 

to disestablish Brandon’s paternity on the basis of fraud and 

material mistake of fact. The district court for Nemaha County 

bifurcated the matters and conducted an evidentiary hearing 

limited to Dylan’s disestablishment claim. Based on the evidence, the district court found fraud and material mistake of 

fact and disestablished Brandon’s paternity; it later denied a 

motion for new trial. Brooke and Brandon purport to appeal 

the May 15, 2023, order that set aside the acknowledgment 
- 266 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

DYLAN H. V. BROOKE C.

Cite as 317 Neb. 264

of paternity and ordered Brandon’s paternity disestablished, 

as well as the August 5, 2023, order that denied a new trial. 

Because Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315 (Reissue 2016), governing 

multiple parties and multiple claims, dictates that the orders are 

not appealable, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Brooke is the natural mother of P.C., born in February 2021. 

In September 2021, Dylan, through counsel, sent a letter to 

Brooke requesting establishment of paternity. Around 8 days 

later, Brooke, Brooke’s ex-husband, and Brandon executed a 

notarized acknowledgment of paternity purporting to establish Brandon as the father of P.C. Brandon testified that when 

he executed the notarized acknowledgment of paternity, he 

believed that P.C. was his biological daughter and that Brooke 

had represented to him that he was her only sexual partner 

during the time of conception.

Although we ultimately dismiss this appeal, the procedural 

history and the parties’ claims are relevant in our analysis, and 

we set them forth below, as relevant.

Dylan’s Complaint to Establish Paternity and 

Third-Party Complaint to Disestablish 

Paternity in Brandon.

In December 2021, Dylan filed a complaint in the district 

court to establish paternity, custody, and support pursuant to 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1411.01 (Cum. Supp. 2022). He also 

moved for genetic testing. Brooke filed an answer in which 

she generally denied Dylan’s allegations of paternity without 

explicitly denying that he was the biological father. Brandon 

moved for leave to intervene, alleging that he and Brooke 

had signed a notarized acknowledgment of paternity, that he 

and Brooke had been in a relationship and were engaged to 

be married, and that he has been P.C.’s father and has maintained a loving and supportive parenting relationship. The 

court allowed Brandon to intervene. Brooke’s ex-husband is 

not directly involved in these proceedings.
- 267 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

DYLAN H. V. BROOKE C.

Cite as 317 Neb. 264

An initial motion for genetic testing filed by Dylan was 

overruled by the court, under the reasoning that it could not 

order genetic testing without first setting aside Brandon’s 

paternity acknowledgment. See Tyler F. v. Sara P., 306 Neb. 

397, 945 N.W.2d 502 (2020). Subsequently, Dylan moved 

for leave to file a third-party complaint against Brooke and 

Brandon to seek disestablishment of Brandon’s paternity. The 

court sustained Dylan’s motion, notwithstanding objections 

by Brooke and Brandon based on the notarized acknowledgment of paternity and their reliance on Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-1412.01 (Reissue 2016). The district court determined 

that § 43-1409 applied because of its explicit provisions for 

challenging a notarized acknowledgment based on fraud or 

material mistake of fact. Brooke and Brandon moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, and the motion was overruled.

Motion for Genetic Testing and First Appeal.

Because it would relate to the disestablishment claim, the 

district court granted Dylan’s successive motion for genetic 

testing as a matter of discovery under Neb. Ct. R. Disc. 

§ 6-335. Brooke and Brandon appealed the order for genetic 

testing to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which determined 

in case No. A-22-690 that the appeal was not filed within 30 

days of the order and that genetic testing is not dispositive of 

the proceedings and does not affect a substantial right of the 

appellants. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

DNA testing results from Dylan and Brandon showed that 

Dylan is P.C.’s biological father.

Trial on Third-Party Complaint to 

Disestablish Brandon’s Paternity.

The district court bifurcated the complaint to establish 

paternity in Dylan from the third-party complaint to disestablish paternity in Brandon and set the issue of disestablishment for trial. Brooke and Brandon filed several unsuccessful motions that, among other things, sought to appoint a 
- 268 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

DYLAN H. V. BROOKE C.

Cite as 317 Neb. 264

guardian ad litem pursuant to § 43-1412.01 and dismiss the 

action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Following a trial, the district court set aside the notarized 

acknowledgment of paternity on the basis of fraud, as well 

as the corresponding basis of material mistake of fact, and 

disestablished Brandon’s paternity. In its order, the district 

court summarized the facts as follows: Brooke, the mother 

of P.C., and Brandon, a third-party, conspired to execute an 

acknowledgment of paternity in order to prevent the biological 

father, Dylan, from exercising his parental rights. Brooke and 

Brandon filed a motion for new trial that was denied.

Subsequent Proceedings in the District Court.

Dylan was subsequently awarded 11⁄2 hours of parenting 

time with P.C. every Saturday and therapeutic parenting time 

of no less than one appointment every 2 weeks. The district 

court noted that because paternity is not yet established in 

Dylan, P.C. would not be informed at this time that Dylan is 

her father.

The district court later entered an order that awarded Dylan 

attorney fees. The order detailed “numerous tactics throughout this case” by Brooke and Brandon “which have served to 

cause significant delays” and found that their first appeal and 

various other motions were “frivolous” and “filed in bad faith 

and/or filed for the purpose of delay.”

Brooke and Brandon purported to appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

According to the notice of appeal, Brooke and Brandon 

challenge the order that disestablished Brandon’s paternity and 

the order denying their motion for new trial related thereto. 

Brooke and Brandon also assign errors related to various incidental rulings by the district court not entirely identified in 

their notice of appeal and, in view of our ruling dismissing the 

appeal, are not subject to consideration.
- 269 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

DYLAN H. V. BROOKE C.

Cite as 317 Neb. 264

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

[1] A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of 

law. Johnson v. Vosberg, 316 Neb. 658, 6 N.W.3d 216 (2024).

ANALYSIS

Brooke and Brandon appeal from the order that disestablished Brandon’s paternity of P.C. and from the order that 

denied their motion for new trial. These orders did not resolve 

all claims encompassed by the pleadings, which also included, 

inter alia, Dylan’s action to establish paternity, custody, and 

support. The single action in the district court presented more 

than one claim for relief and involved multiple parties, and 

the district court’s orders adjudicated fewer than all of the 

claims. Therefore, we determine that § 25-1315(1) is implicated in this case and that its jurisdictional requirements were 

not met in this appeal. As explained below, we are without 

jurisdiction to decide the merits of this appeal, and we dismiss 

this appeal.

Appellate Jurisdiction.

[2,3] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, 

it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it 

has jurisdiction over the matter before it. Clason v. LOL 

Investments, 316 Neb. 91, 3 N.W.3d 94 (2024). The right of 

appeal in Nebraska is purely statutory, and unless a statute 

provides for an appeal, such right does not exist. Johnson v. 

Vosberg, supra.

[4] Through Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912 (Cum. Supp. 2022), 

the Legislature has authorized appeals from judgments and 

decrees rendered, as well as final orders, made by the district court. Id. Additionally, when “an action” presents more 

than one “claim for relief” or involves multiple parties, and 

the court enters an order that adjudicates fewer than all the 

claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, § 25-1315(1) is implicated, and to become appealable, 
- 270 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

DYLAN H. V. BROOKE C.

Cite as 317 Neb. 264

the order must comply with the requirements of certification 

of an appeal in § 25-1315(1). See Johnson v. Vosberg, supra.

Section 25-1315(1) provides:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an 

action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or 

third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, 

the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to 

one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties 

only upon an express determination that there is no just 

reason for delay and upon an express direction for the 

entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, 

however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all 

the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all 

the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the 

claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of 

judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and 

liabilities of all the parties.

[5] For purposes of determining whether a case presents 

more than one “claim for relief” under § 25-1315(1), we have 

said the term is not synonymous with an “issue” or “theory of 

recovery,” but is instead the equivalent of a “cause of action.” 

Mann v. Mann, 312 Neb. 275, 286, 978 N.W.2d 606, 615 

(2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because of this 

construction, our cases sometimes use the phrases “claim for 

relief” and “cause of action” interchangeably when analyzing 

whether § 25-1315 is implicated. Id.

Section 25-1315 attempts to strike a balance between the 

undesirability of piecemeal appeals and the potential need for 

making review available at a time that best serves the needs of 

the parties. See Mann v. Mann, supra. Certification of a final 

judgment must be reserved for the “unusual case” in which 

the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings 

and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by 

the pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate 
- 271 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

DYLAN H. V. BROOKE C.

Cite as 317 Neb. 264

judgment as to some claims or parties. TDP Phase One v. 

The Club at the Yard, 307 Neb. 795, 950 N.W.2d 640 (2020); 

Rafert v. Meyer, 298 Neb. 461, 905 N.W.2d 30 (2017).

Without entry of a final judgment under § 25-1315(1), 

orders adjudicating fewer than all claims against all parties are 

not final and are “subject to revision at any time before the 

entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights 

and liabilities of all the parties.” Mann v. Mann, supra; Boyd v. 

Cook, 298 Neb. 819, 906 N.W.2d 31 (2018).

Implication of § 25-1315 and 

Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction.

In the present case, there were multiple parties and multiple 

claims for relief, including establishment of Dylan’s paternity 

and disestablishment of Brandon’s paternity. Only the disestablishment claim has been ruled on. Indeed, several journal 

entries contained in the record confirm this. An entry on 

August 4, 2023, states, “[T]rial . . . held on the bifurcated issue 

of the disestablishment of paternity only.” (Emphasis omitted.) 

Section 25-1315(1) is implicated in this case.

[6] We have held that where § 25-1315 is implicated,

one may bring an appeal pursuant to such section only 

when (1) multiple causes of action or multiple parties 

are present, (2) the court enters a “final order” within the 

meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2016) as 

to one or more but fewer than all of the causes of action 

or parties, and (3) the trial court expressly directs the 

entry of such final order and expressly determines that 

there is no just reason for delay of an immediate appeal.

State on behalf of Marcelo K. & Rycki K. v. Ricky K., 300 Neb. 

179, 183, 912 N.W.2d 747, 750 (2018). The trial court’s express 

determination is sometimes referred to as “certification.”

[7] Elsewhere, we have stated:

[I]n cases where § 25-1315(1) is implicated, and no more 

specific statute governs the appeal, an order resolving 

fewer than all claims against all parties is not final and 
- 272 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

DYLAN H. V. BROOKE C.

Cite as 317 Neb. 264

appealable if it lacks proper § 25-1315 certification. This 

is so even if the order otherwise satisfies one of the final 

order categories in § 25-1902(1).

Mann v. Mann, 312 Neb. 275, 292, 978 N.W.2d 606, 618 

(2022).

Here, the paternity case and disestablishment case have been 

joined into a single case in the district court, and § 25-1315(1) 

is implicated. Under similar circumstances, where there is 

no certification under § 25-1315(1), we have dismissed the 

case for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See State on behalf 

of Marcelo K. & Rycki K. v. Ricky K., supra. Cf. Tyler F. 

v. Sara P., 306 Neb. 397, 945 N.W.2d 502 (2020) (exercising appellate jurisdiction over two separate actions and two 

separate appeals, which, taken together, involved paternity and 

disestablishment).

The district court did not purport to enter a final judgment 

in this case, and the appellate record contains no § 25-1315 

certification of any order. The orders that were purportedly 

appealed from ruled only on Dylan’s third-party complaint 

to disestablish Brandon’s paternity and not on the cause of 

action framed by Dylan’s complaint to establish paternity. 

Where, as here, the language of § 25-1315(1) is implicated, 

we must apply the requirements of that section in order to 

find a final, appealable order. The requirements have not been 

met, and we lack jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

Because Brooke and Brandon appealed from orders deemed 

to be nonfinal under § 25-1315, we lack jurisdiction over the 

appeal. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.