- 516 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Scott McColery, 

appellee, and Brett McArthur, 

Intervenor-appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed November 9, 2018. No. S-17-1121.

1. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law, 

in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach 

an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination 

made by the court below.

2. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. The fundamental objective of statutory 

interpretation is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent.

3. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory language is to be given its plain 

and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of words which are plain, direct, and 

unambiguous.

4. Statutes. A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible of more than one 

reasonable interpretation, meaning that a court could reasonably interpret the statute either way.

5. ____. It is impermissible to follow a literal reading that engenders 

absurd consequences where there is an alternative interpretation that 

reasonably effects a statute’s purpose.

6. ____. A court must attempt to give effect to all parts of a statute, and if 

it can be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be rejected as superfluous or meaningless.

7. Divorce: Alimony: Child Support: Liens: Property: Legislature. The 

Legislature did not provide through Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-371 (Reissue 

2016) for a lien on all personal property, tangible and intangible; 

instead, it expressly limited the lien to “registered personal property.”

8. Judgments: Liens: Statutes. Judgment liens are creatures of statute.

9. Liens: Statutes. When a lien comes into existence by force of a statute, 

it must be measured by the statute, and can have no greater force than 

the statute gives it.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

11/23/2018 12:11 AM CST
- 517 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

10. Statutes. Statutes in derogation of common law are to be strictly 

construed.

11. Property. Money is intangible property; it is not tied up in a fixed state.

12. Bailment: Divorce: Alimony: Child Support: Property. Under the 

current statutory scheme for bail, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-901 through 

29-910 (Reissue 2016), money deposited as recognizance with the clerk 

of the court is not personal property registered with a county office 

under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-371 (Reissue 2016).

13. Statutes. With respect to questions about a statute, a court’s role is 

limited to interpretation and application of statutes, irrespective of the 

court’s personal agreement or disagreement with a particular legislative 

enactment, so long as a questioned statute does not violate a constitutional requirement.

14. ____. Whether a court considers particular legislation as wise or unwise 

is irrelevant to the judicial task of construing or applying a statute.

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: 

Andrew R. Jacobsen, Judge. Reversed and remanded with 

directions.

Brett McArthur, pro se.

Joe Kelly, Lancaster County Attorney, and Braden W. Storer 

for appellee State of Nebraska.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Freudenberg, J.

NATURE OF CASE

This is an appeal by the debtor’s former attorney from an 

order in garnishment enforcing a statutory lien by the State 

for past-due child support, against an appearance bond deposit 

held by the clerk of the court in a criminal case unrelated to 

the child support order. During the pendency of the criminal 

matter, the debtor had assigned to his attorney his contingent 

right to a return of the bond deposit, as part of the debtor’s payment for the attorney’s services. During the garnishment proceedings, the attorney asserted that appearance bond 

funds are not personal property “registered” with a “county 
- 518 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

office,” as required for a lien under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-371 

(Reissue 2016). The district court disagreed and found that 

the State had a lien under § 42-371. We reverse, and remand 

with directions.

BACKGROUND

In 1994, the State obtained a judgment against Scott 

McColery for child support. By 2000, McColery was approximately $12,000 in arrears on his child support payments. In 

September 2015, McColery was charged in the county court for 

Lancaster County with strangulation. By that time, McColery 

was approximately $18,000 in arrears in his child support 

payments.

On October 5, 2015, pending trial, McColery deposited with 

the county court $5,000 in relation to a $50,000 appearance 

bond. The bond was to remain in force until the final judgment. Ninety percent of the bond deposit was to be returned to 

McColery upon appearance, and 10 percent would be retained 

by the county court clerk for bond costs.

Although McColery was originally represented by a public 

defender, he later obtained Brett McArthur to represent him. As 

part of McArthur’s compensation, McColery assigned the bond 

funds to McArthur. The assignment was made on October 29, 

2015, and was filed with the county court the next day.

Following McColery’s conviction, on November 18, 2015, 

the State filed in the county court an affidavit of lien for child 

support. The State averred that McColery owed more than 

$18,000 in past-due child support. The State explained in its 

affidavit that it had reason to believe that the county court had 

McColery’s property in its possession, in the form of a bond. 

The parties do not dispute that McColery appeared in court as 

ordered, and his bond was not forfeited.

Release of Funds Motion

On June 30, 2016, McArthur filed a motion with the 

district court for Lancaster County to issue an order releasing the bond funds to him. The district court overruled the 
- 519 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

motion without making specific findings of fact. McArthur 

appealed.

In State v. McColery,

1

 we held that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, because the court’s order overruling the 

motion to release the bond funds was not final.2 We explained 

that the order was not a final determination of the rights of the 

parties, because it did not indicate that McArthur was not entitled to the funds or that the State was entitled to the funds. We 

noted that the State had not yet initiated garnishment proceedings. We explained further that if it did so, McArthur would 

be able to intervene pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1030.03 

(Reissue 2016).

Garnishment Proceedings

On July 10, 2017, the State filed with the district court an 

affidavit for garnishee summons after judgment. The State set 

forth in the affidavit that the district court had McColery’s 

property, which the State sought to garnish to partially satisfy 

past-due child support in the amount of $17,923.46. The summons and order of garnishment in aid of execution was issued 

the following day.

The clerk of the district court did not object and responded 

to the attached interrogatories, stating that it had property 

belonging to McColery. Specifically, the clerk of the district 

court described the property as “Bond Money at CR-15-1358,” 

in the amount of $4,500. But, under “[d]ate the money or 

credits were due, or will be due,” the clerk explained “Upon 

Order - Bond Assigned to Attorney 10-30-15.”

McColery requested a hearing and alleged that the funds 

asked for were exempt from garnishment. McArthur intervened 

and filed a motion to quash garnishment on the ground that the 

$4,500 in the district court’s possession had been assigned to 

McArthur before the garnishment action.

1 See State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 53, 898 N.W.2d 349 (2017).

2 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2016).
- 520 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

The court held a hearing on the motion to quash. The State 

argued that the child support judgment against McColery operated as an automatic lien against the funds from the moment 

they were deposited into the county court, because they constituted “personal property registered with [a] county office.”3

McArthur argued that depositing a bond is not “registering” it 

and, further, that the county court is not a “county office.”

The court overruled McArthur’s motion to quash and ordered 

that the bond funds being held by the court be remitted to the 

Nebraska Child Support Payment Center and credited against 

McColery’s child support arrears. McArthur appeals.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

McArthur assigns that the district court erred in overruling 

his motion to quash garnishment and in ordering the payment 

of funds held by the court toward McColery’s child support 

payments.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Statutory interpretation is a matter of law, in connection 

with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an 

independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.4

ANALYSIS

The sole issue raised by McArthur in this appeal is whether 

appearance bond funds held by the clerk of the court are “personal property registered with any county office,” as stated 

in § 42-371. McArthur argues that the county court is not an 

“office” and that the deposit of an appearance bond is not 

“register[ing]” that property with the court. McArthur has not 

disputed that if the bond funds were personal property “registered” with a “county office,” then the statutory lien was 

automatically perfected upon deposit and garnishment was 

3 § 42-371(1).

4 In re Interest of Lisa O., 248 Neb. 865, 540 N.W.2d 109 (1995).
- 521 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

proper. The clerk of the court did not claim immunity from 

garnishment proceedings.5 We limit our opinion to the issues 

presented.6 We conclude that money deposited in the court 

as recognizance is not “registered” personal property under 

§ 42-371.

Section 42-371, contained within the statutory scheme governing divorce, alimony, and child support, establishes a lien 

on certain property for child support. Specifically, § 42-371 

provides:

(1) All judgments and orders for payment of money 

shall be liens, as in other actions, upon real property and 

any personal property registered with any county office 

and may be enforced or collected by execution and the 

means authorized for collection of money judgments;

. . . .

(5) Support order judgments shall cease to be liens on 

real or registered personal property ten years from the 

date (a) the youngest child becomes of age or dies or 

(b) the most recent execution was issued to collect the 

judgment, whichever is later, and such lien shall not be 

reinstated;

. . . .

(9) Any lien authorized by this section against personal 

property registered with any county consisting of a motor 

vehicle or mobile home shall attach upon notation of the 

lien against the motor vehicle or mobile home certificate 

of title and shall have its priority established pursuant to 

the terms of section 60-164 or a subordination document 

executed under this section.

5 See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1012.02 (Reissue 2016); Fox v. Whitbeck, 286 

Neb. 134, 835 N.W.2d 638 (2013); Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass’n v. Hier, 

52 Neb. 424, 72 N.W. 588 (1897).

6 See, Cattle Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Watson, 293 Neb. 943, 880 N.W.2d 

906 (2016); Myers v. Nebraska Equal Opp. Comm., 255 Neb. 156, 582 

N.W.2d 362 (1998).
- 522 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

[2-6] The fundamental objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent.7

Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to 

ascertain the meaning of words which are plain, direct, and 

unambiguous.8 A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible of 

more than one reasonable interpretation, meaning that a court 

could reasonably interpret the statute either way.9 Furthermore, 

it is impermissible to follow a literal reading that engenders 

absurd consequences where there is an alternative interpretation that reasonably effects the statute’s purpose.10 A court 

must attempt to give effect to all parts of a statute, and if it can 

be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be rejected as 

superfluous or meaningless.11 An appellate court can examine 

an act’s legislative history if a statute is ambiguous or requires 

interpretation.12

[7] The Legislature did not provide through § 42-371 for a 

lien on all personal property, tangible and intangible; instead, 

it expressly limited the lien to “registered personal property.” 

The terms “registered” and “registered personal property” are 

not specifically defined in the statutes governing divorce, 

alimony, and child support. Nor are these terms defined in 

the various statutes governing execution13 and other means 

of enforcement and collection of money judgments.14 Under 

dictionary definitions, to “register” is defined variously as 

to actively and formally enroll or record in a list, catalog, or 

7 State v. Thompson, 294 Neb. 197, 881 N.W.2d 609 (2016).

8 Heiden v. Norris, 300 Neb. 171, 912 N.W.2d 758 (2018).

9 Fisher v. PayFlex Systems USA, 285 Neb. 808, 829 N.W.2d 703 (2013).

10 Wisner v. Vandelay Investments, 300 Neb. 825, 916 N.W.2d 698 (2018).

11 Id.

12 Farmers Co-op v. State, 296 Neb. 347, 893 N.W.2d 728 (2017).

13 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1501 through 25-15,105 (Reissue 2016 & Supp. 

2017).

14 See, e.g., Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1001 through 25-1056 (Reissue 2016).
- 523 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

roll15; to enter into a public registry16; to record someone’s 

name or ownership of property on an official list17; and to enter 

or record in an official list as being in a particular category, 

having a particular eligibility or entitlement, or in keeping with 

a requirement.18 Inherent to these definitions is both a broad 

and a narrow understanding of “registration.”

The State adopts a broad meaning and argues that appearance bonds are “registered,” because the clerk of the court 

assigns an identification number to the funds and catalogs 

them into a publicly available court record by the defendant’s 

name, date of birth, and criminal case number. McArthur 

adopts a narrower meaning and argues that registration under 

§ 42-371 is cataloging property onto a formal registry with a 

specific purpose that includes registration of liens upon the 

property. We agree that the Legislature intended a narrower 

meaning and that an appearance bond deposit is not registered 

personal property under § 42-371.

The process by which the clerk of the court keeps track 

of appearance bonds is not specifically required by the bail 

statutes.19 Instead, those statutes refer only to the “deposit” of 

the recognizance.20 To “deposit” is “[t]he act of giving money 

or other property to another who promises to preserve it or to 

use it and return it in kind.”21 To preserve the money in a way 

that it can be returned, the clerk of the court must necessarily conduct some recordkeeping. Such acts of recordkeeping, 

15 See, Black’s Law Dictionary 1473 (10th ed. 2014); “Register,” MerriamWebster.com, https://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/register (last 

visited Oct. 26, 2018).

16 See Black’s Law Dictionary, supra note 15 at 1473.

17 “Register,” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/register 

(last visited Oct. 26, 2018).

18 The New Oxford American Dictionary 1434 (2001).

19 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-901 through 29-910 (Reissue 2016).

20 See §§ 29-901(1)(c)(i) and 29-904.

21 Black’s Law Dictionary, supra note 15 at 533.
- 524 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

however, do not make the money “registered personal property” subject to the statutory lien.

[8-11] Judgment liens are creatures of statute.22 When a lien 

comes into existence by force of a statute, it must be measured 

by the statute, and can have no greater force than the statute 

gives it.23 And statutes in derogation of common law are to 

be strictly construed.24 Early execution procedures did not 

extend to intangible assets.25 Money is intangible property;26 it 

is not tied up in a fixed state.27 Thus, our execution statutes,28

to which § 42-371 explicitly refers, describe only “goods and 

chattels” as personal property subject to execution.29 Money is 

neither a good nor a chattel.30 In fact, “personal property” is 

susceptible of more than one meaning; while personal property 

has a broader meaning of everything that is the subject of ownership except lands and interests in lands,31 it was traditionally 

understood in the more restricted sense embracing only tangible goods and chattels.32

It would be unusual to conclude that the Legislature 

intended § 42-371 to create a lien that could not be executed 

22 See, Grosvenor v. Grosvenor, 206 Neb. 395, 293 N.W.2d 96 (1980); Freis 

v. Harvey, 5 Neb. App. 679, 563 N.W.2d 363 (1997).

23 County Board of Platte County v. Breese, 171 Neb. 37, 105 N.W.2d 478 

(1960).

24 See id.

25 William J. Woodward, Jr., New Judgment Liens on Personal Property: 

Does “Efficient” Mean “Better”?, 27 Harv. J. on Legis. 1 (1990).

26 Weiss v. McFadden, 353 Ark. 868, 120 S.W.3d 545 (2003).

27 See McCulloch v. McCulloch, 232 Ark. 413, 337 S.W.2d 870 (1960).

28 See §§ 25-1501 through 25-15,105.

29 See §§ 25-1503, 25-1504, 25-1516(1), 25-1518, and 25-1521 and 2018 

Neb. Laws, L.B. 193, §§ 24 and 26 (effective July 19, 2018).

30 See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-335 (Supp. 2017); Neb. U.C.C § 2A-103 

(Reissue 2001); Black’s Law Dictionary, supra note 15 at 286 and 808-09.

31 See id.

32 In re Estate of Chadwick, 247 Iowa 1050, 78 N.W.2d 31 (1956).
- 525 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

upon, on an intangible that was not traditionally understood as 

even being “personal property.” And it is clear from the legislative history that the Legislature did not in fact envision a 

registration system for money, appearance bond or otherwise, 

when it added the “registered personal property” language to 

the statute.

The reference to registered personal property was added 

in 1985 by L.B. 733 in response to the federal Child Support 

Enforcement Amendments of 1984,34 which required states to, 

among other things, adopt “‘[p]rocedures under which liens 

are imposed against real and personal property for amounts 

of overdue support owed by an absent parent who resides or 

owns property in the State.’” While much of the legislative 

history concerned other matters, several senators indicated that 

“registered personal property” was to be understood in a narrower sense. For instance, it was discussed that grain required 

to be documented with the local courthouse was not “registered 

personal property” and that Uniform Commercial Code filings 

would not be considered “registered” for purposes of § 42-371, 

because they were instead “filed.”35

In fact, it appears that the only registered personal property specifically contemplated at the time of L.B. 7 were 

motor vehicles and mobile homes, which are addressed in 

§ 42-371(9). This operates in conjunction with provisions of 

the Motor Vehicle Registration Act.36 Section 60-164 of the 

Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act37 establishes an electronic 

33 1985 Neb. Laws, L.B. 7, § 19.

34 Pub. L. No. 98-378, § 3, 98 Stat. 1305.

35 Floor Debate, L.B. 7, 89th Leg., 2d Spec. Sess. 881 (Nov. 12, 1985). See 

Judiciary Committee Hearing, L.B. 7, 89th Leg., 2d Spec. Sess. 32 (Oct. 

24, 1985).

36 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-301 through 60-3,222 (Reissue 2010, Cum. Supp. 

2016 & Supp. 2017).

37 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-101 through 60-197 (Reissue 2010, Cum. Supp. 

2016 & Supp. 2017).
- 526 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

title and lien system for various vehicles, to be maintained by 

the county treasurer and continuously updated. Liens recorded 

under this system are generally given priority in accordance 

with the order of time in which they are noted by the county 

treasurer or Department of Motor Vehicles.38 This system has 

little in common with the recordkeeping of the clerk of the 

court for appearance bond deposits.

Although providing redress for unpaid child support 

addresses very important public policy concerns, the attachment of a judgment lien to money deposited with the clerk of 

the court has other public policy implications as well. It is not 

the role of this court to weigh such public policy matters,39

and these public policy questions were not weighed by the 

Legislature when it enacted L.B. 7. Further, we have not been 

asked to review whether other child support collection remedies are available to reach a child support debtor’s appearance 

bond. Our decision is confined to the application of § 42-371 

to the garnishment action here presented.

[12] Several other jurisdictions’ statutory schemes that allow 

child support liens to attach to money, in bank accounts or 

elsewhere, do so explicitly.40 Our Legislature could have similarly so provided. But, instead, it limited the lien to “registered 

personal property.” While “registered personal property” may 

be susceptible to more than one meaning, viewing § 42-371 in 

pari materia with related statutes and looking at its Legislative 

history, we must understand “registered” in its narrower sense. 

We hold that under the current statutory scheme for bail,41

38 See § 60-164(3).

39 See Myers v. Nebraska Invest. Council, 272 Neb. 669, 724 N.W.2d 776 

(2006).

40 See, e.g., Haw. Rev. Stat. § 576D-10.5 (2006); 305 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 

5/10-25.5 (LexisNexis 1999); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 119A, §§ 6(b)(1) 

and (5) (West 2017); 23 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4308.1 (West 

2018); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.317 (West 2014).

41 See §§ 29-901 through 29-910.
- 527 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

money deposited as recognizance with the clerk of the court 

is not personal property registered with a county office under 

§ 42-371.

Children’s needs call for effective and efficient enforcement of child support obligations. This can easily occur where 

those seeking the enforcement of child support obligations 

diligently check bail records against child support judgments, 

and take prompt action. If a criminal case defendant has 

posted bond money which is not subject to an assignment or 

its equivalent to another, a routine garnishment can capture 

the funds upon release.

[13,14] If the Legislature believes that we have not correctly ascertained its intent, then it is free to amend § 42-371 

accordingly. With respect to questions about a statute, our 

role is limited to interpretation and application of statutes, 

irrespective of our personal agreement or disagreement with a 

particular legislative enactment, so long as a questioned statute does not violate a constitutional requirement.42 Whether 

a court considers particular legislation as wise or unwise 

is irrelevant to the judicial task of construing or applying 

a statute.43

CONCLUSION

Because the bond deposit was not “registered personal 

property,” we reverse the judgment of the district court and 

remand the cause with directions to vacate the order of 

garnishment.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

42 Else v. Else, 219 Neb. 878, 367 N.W.2d 701 (1985).

43 Id.

Cassel, J., concurring.

I write separately to highlight that other language of the 

existing statute supports this court’s decision. The parties 

attributed no significance to the statutory phrase “as in other 
- 528 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

actions,”1 but basic principles of statutory construction dictate 

otherwise. A court must attempt to give effect to all parts of a 

statute, and if it can be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence 

will be rejected as superfluous or meaningless.2 The whole and 

every part of a statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts.3

The controlling subsection states: “All judgments and orders 

for payment of money shall be liens, as in other actions, upon

real property and any personal property registered with any 

county office and may be enforced or collected by execution 

and the means authorized for collection of money judgments.”4

In answering the question posed by this appeal, the meaning 

of “as in other actions” is just as significant as any other word 

or phrase. And this phrase directs attention both to other statutes and to preexisting case law.

Prior to a 1985 amendment made in response to a federal 

mandate, § 42-371(1) stated, in pertinent part: “All judgments 

and orders for payment of money under sections 42-347 to 

42-379 shall be liens upon property as in other actions and may 

be enforced or collected by execution and the means authorized for collection of money judgments.”5

 The Legislature 

fully comprehended the effect of these words.

The general statute governing the effect of a judgment lien 

has not changed since long before the 1943 recodification.6

It was well understood that a judgment became a lien upon a 

debtor’s lands and tenements within the county on the day the 

judgment was rendered.7 This flows from the language of the 

general statute, which states:

1 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-371(1) (Reissue 2016).

2 Heiden v. Norris, 300 Neb. 171, 912 N.W.2d 758 (2018).

3 Id.

4 § 42-371(1) (emphasis supplied).

5 § 42-371(1) (Reissue 1984) (emphasis supplied).

6 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1504 (Reissue 2016).

7 See State Bank v. Carson, 4 Neb. 498 (1876).
- 529 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

The lands and tenements of the debtor within the 

county where the judgment is entered, shall be bound for 

the satisfaction thereof only from the day on which such 

judgments are rendered. All other lands, as well as goods 

and chattels of the debtor, shall be bound from the time 

they shall be seized in execution; Provided, that a judgment shall be considered as rendered when such judgment 

has been entered on the judgment record.8

It was equally well understood that money judgments did 

not become a lien upon personal property until it was “seized 

in execution.”9 This court required only a bare statutory citation to declare that a plaintiff had no lien against funds being 

held by a court merely because of a money judgment against 

the defendant.10

Before the 1985 amendment to § 42-371, this court recognized that the “lien of a judgment for child support . . . constitutes a lien the same as other monetary judgments.”11 As early 

as 1894, the court recognized that judgments for alimony were 

“made liens upon property the same as judgments in actions 

at law, and their collection is enforceable in the same manner 

as other judgments.”12

It was in the light of this history that the Legislature complied with the federal mandate to enforce child support against 

personal property. The legislative history this court cites articulated that understanding.

The parties have not cited nor have I found any other 

statute applying a judgment lien to personal property before 

8 § 25-1504.

9 Credit Bureau of Broken Bow, Inc. v. Moninger, 204 Neb. 679, 284 

N.W.2d 855 (1979).

10 See Ceres Fertilizer, Inc. v. Beekman, 209 Neb. 447, 308 N.W.2d 347 

(1981).

11 Action Realty Co., Inc. v. Miller, 191 Neb. 381, 385, 215 N.W.2d 629, 632 

(1974).

12 Nygren v. Nygren, 42 Neb. 408, 411, 60 N.W. 885, 886 (1894).
- 530 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

301 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. McCOLERY

Cite as 301 Neb. 516

levy of execution or garnishment. When the Legislature 

added the provision for a child support judgment lien against 

“any personal property registered with any county office,”13

it did so understanding that in other actions, no judgment 

lien attached to personal property until levy of execution or 

garnishment.

The 1985 amendment made perfect sense regarding motor 

vehicles or mobile homes, which have certificates of title. And 

even in those two instances, the statute does not impose a lien 

automatically, as the State asserts occurred here against the 

bail deposit. Instead, a child support judgment lien attaches 

to motor vehicles or mobile homes “upon notation of the 

lien against the . . . certificate of title.”14 And by reference to 

another statute, the child support lien statute dictates that such 

liens on motor vehicles or mobile homes “take priority according to the order of time in which the same are noted by the 

county treasurer or department.”15 This follows the first-in-time 

principle of judgment liens attaching to real estate.16

As this court’s opinion recognizes, child support obligations 

can be collected from bail deposits under existing law. The 

1985 Legislature acted carefully and deliberately in striking 

a balance by allowing enforcement of judgments against bail 

deposits by execution or garnishment having priority as of the 

date of levy.

13 § 42-371(1) (Reissue 2016).

14 § 42-371(9).

15 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-164(3) (Supp. 2017).

16 See Pontiac Improvement Co. v. Leisy, 144 Neb. 705, 14 N.W.2d 384 

(1944).