- 807 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER

Cite as 316 Neb. 807

In re Change of Name of Druckenmiller.

J.D., a minor, by and through his mother and next 

friend, Carmen Druckenmiller, appellant, 

v. Garth Druckenmiller, appellee.

S.D., a minor, by and through his mother and next 

friend, Carmen Druckenmiller, appellant, 

v. Garth Druckenmiller, appellee.

___ N.W.3d ___

Filed June 7, 2024. Nos. S-23-340, S-23-341.

1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question that 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 independently 

reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.

3. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. It is the duty of an appellate court to 

determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.

4. 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 statutory words which are plain, 

direct, and unambiguous.

5. Jurisdiction: Minors: Names. Under the plain language of Neb. Rev. 

Stat. §§ 25-21,270 to 25-21,273 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp. 2022), 

a district court, exercising jurisdiction in a name change case, has no 

power to decide whether a minor child’s birth date should be changed.

6. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: Equity. Article V, § 9, of the 

Nebraska Constitution confers equity jurisdiction upon the district 

courts.

7. Jurisdiction: Equity. If a court of equity has properly acquired jurisdiction of a suit for equitable relief, it may make complete adjudication 

of all matters properly presented and involved in the case and grant 

relief, legal or equitable, as may be required and thus avoid unnecessary litigation.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

07/10/2024 06:08 PM CDT
- 808 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER

Cite as 316 Neb. 807

8. Actions: Equity: Jurisdiction. An action in equity must be founded on 

some recognized source of equity jurisdiction.

9. Equity. In dealing with legal rights, a court of equity adopts and follows 

the rules of law in all cases to which those rules are applicable, and 

whenever there is an explicit statute or a direct rule of law governing the 

case in all its circumstances, a court of equity is as much bound by it as 

would be a court of law.

10. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Equity. A court’s equitable powers cannot be used to provide relief that is contrary to statutory or constitutional 

requirements, and courts of equity can no more disregard statutory and 

constitutional requirements and provisions than can courts of law.

11. Statutes: Equity. A court acting in equity may not provide for nonlegal, 

equitable remedies to avoid unduly harsh application of a statute.

12. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. When a trial court lacks jurisdiction 

to adjudicate the merits of a claim, issue, or question, an appellate court 

also lacks the power to determine the merits of the claim, issue, or question presented to the lower court.

Appeals from the District Court for Burt County: John E. 

Samson, Judge. Affirmed.

John P. Farrell, of The Law Offices of John P. Farrell, 

L.L.C., for appellant.

No appearance by appellee.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Cassel, J.

INTRODUCTION

In these name change proceedings, a district court granted 

the name change requests of two minor children but found 

that it lacked jurisdiction to change the “arbitrarily chosen” 

birth dates listed on the children’s foreign adoption certificates. 

The adoptive mother appeals on behalf of both children. We 

conclude that there is no explicit statutory authority or recognized source of equity jurisdiction allowing a district court to 

change a minor child’s birth date in a name change proceeding. 

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s decrees.
- 809 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER

Cite as 316 Neb. 807

BACKGROUND

Petitions

Carmen Druckenmiller filed two petitions—both labeled 

“Verified Petition for Name Change”—in the district court 

for Burt County, Nebraska, on behalf of her adoptive minor 

children, J.D. and S.D. The petitions were filed under separate 

district court case numbers. They set forth two general requests 

for relief.

First, the petition for each child sought to change his legal 

name in order to “correct the error made at the time of [the] 

minor child’s birth in completing the required paperwork to 

name the minor child.” Because we focus solely on the second 

request for relief, we mention the first one only to note that it 

was made.

Second, the petition for each child sought to change his 

birth date to “a year younger” in order to “reflect the correct 

date of birth for legal and educational purposes.” The petitions set forth the following allegations: The children were 

born in a rural area in Ethiopia without “official” birth certificates; an incorrect birth date was “arbitrarily chosen” for each 

child’s “adoption certificate”; and at the time of the adoptions, a bone scan was done, stating that each child’s “correct birthdate was a year younger than stated on the adoption 

certificate”—in other words, the children were a year younger 

than their adoption certificates indicated. Finally, the petitions 

alleged that a current bone scan of each child “confirm[ed] 

the [minor child’s] birthdate as a year younger than on his 

certificate of citizenship.” 

The petitions did not specify the “correct” or “incorrect” 

birth dates, and the records presented do not contain the 

“adoption certificate[s]” or “certificate[s] of citizenship.” We 

understand the references to these certificates to refer to the 

children’s foreign adoption certificates and their certificates 

of citizenship issued by the federal government. It appears 

that the birth dates were provided in a “Confidential Party 
- 810 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER

Cite as 316 Neb. 807

Information Form,” which is not included in the appellate 

records.

We note that the records show no indication the adoptive 

father participated in the proceedings below, and he is not participating in the appeals.

Hearing

The district court held a joint hearing on both petitions, 

during which it heard testimony from Druckenmiller and both 

children. At that time, the children were purported to be 

16 years old (J.D.) and 15 years old (S.D.). The court also 

received exhibits pertaining to the children’s ages.

From the bill of exceptions, we learn that Druckenmiller 

and the adoptive father were formerly married and that they 

adopted the children in Ethiopia in 2011. The children’s 

names were designated by the adoption agency, and because 

their birth dates were unknown, the adoption agency “just 

kind of picked birth dates to put on a birth certificate.” The 

couple had apparently agreed to give the children different 

names and to “readopt” them in the United States in order 

to change their birth dates, but the readoption did not occur 

before the couple divorced.

Druckenmiller’s testimony suggested that readoption was 

no longer an option unless the adoptive father “gives up all 

parental rights, which neither of us want.” However, she 

believed that she could work with “Vital Records” in order 

to make the desired changes after obtaining a court order. 

Given the context, we understand “Vital Records” to mean the 

Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 

the agency that handles the registration and certification of 

vital events in Nebraska. 1 We note that the records do not 

contain any documentation sent to or from DHHS, and DHHS 

was not a party in the cases.

1 See, generally, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 71-601 to 71-649 (Reissue 2018 & Cum. 

Supp. 2022) (vital statistics statutes).
- 811 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER

Cite as 316 Neb. 807

At the close of the evidence, the court granted the name 

change requests for both children and took the requests to 

change their birth dates under advisement. The court gave 

Druckenmiller’s counsel an opportunity to submit briefing on 

“any legal authority which allows a [d]istrict [c]ourt on a name 

change application to have the jurisdiction to change a minor 

child’s date of birth.” The records suggest that counsel submitted a letter to the court to that effect. 

District Court’s Decrees

The district court entered two decrees—one regarding J.D. 

and the other regarding S.D.—in which it granted the name 

change requests for both children but denied the requests to 

change the “incorrect” birth dates. In refusing to change the 

birth dates, the court reasoned, in full, in both decrees:

(a) The Court does not have jurisdiction to render such 

an Order; and,

(b) If the Court had jurisdiction, the Court finds that 

[Druckenmiller] did not meet her burden of proof to 

establish: (i) That it is in the best interest of the minor 

child for “legal reasons” to change the birth date, especially when considering [Druckenmiller] could not establish the exact birth date of the minor child, nor did she 

articulate “legal” reasons that were detrimental to the 

minor child; and (ii) That it is in the best interest of 

the minor for “educational purposes”, as [Druckenmiller] 

could not articulate the detrimental [e]ffect the minor 

child’s birth date has on his educational opportunities.

Druckenmiller filed timely appeals on the children’s behalf, 

which we moved to our docket. 2 The appeals were consolidated 

for purposes of oral argument and disposition.

For simplicity, we will refer to the appealing parties collectively as “Druckenmiller” from here on. 

2 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
- 812 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER

Cite as 316 Neb. 807

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Druckenmiller assigns, consolidated and restated, that the 

district court erred in (1) finding it lacked jurisdiction to 

“correct” the children’s birth dates and (2) determining that 

changing the birth dates was not in the children’s best interests. We need not address both assignments because our decision on Druckenmiller’s first claim resolves the appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] A jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of 

law. 3 An appellate court independently reviews questions of 

law decided by a lower court. 4

ANALYSIS

[3] These cases present the question whether a district 

court, in a name change proceeding, has the power to change 

an adoptive child’s birth date in a situation where the child 

was given an “arbitrarily chosen” birth date on a foreign 

adoption certificate, which in turn was reflected on a federal 

certificate of citizenship. The district court found that it lacked 

jurisdiction to do so. Druckenmiller contends otherwise. It 

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

jurisdiction over the matter before it. 5

No Statutory Authority

The district court concluded—and Druckenmiller concedes—

there was no explicit statutory authority to change the children’s birth dates in the name change proceedings. We agree.

3 A & P II v. Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal., ante p. 216, 3 N.W.3d 907 

(2024).

4 Clason v. LOL Investments, ante p. 91, 3 N.W.3d 94 (2024).

5 First Tennessee Bank Nat. Assn. v. Newham, 290 Neb. 273, 859 N.W.2d 

569 (2015).
- 813 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER

Cite as 316 Neb. 807

The general grant of jurisdiction in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-302 

(Reissue 2016) provides that “[t]he district courts shall have 

and exercise general, original and appellate jurisdiction in 

all matters, both civil and criminal, except where otherwise 

provided.” The Legislature has provided a number of specific statutory grants of jurisdiction, including jurisdiction in 

name change proceedings. 6 But there is no explicit statutory 

authority to change a minor child’s birth date under the name 

change statutes. 7

[4,5] In the absence of anything to the contrary, we adhere 

to the principle that 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 statutory words 

which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. 8 We hold that under 

the plain language of §§ 25-21,270 to 25-21,273, a district 

court, exercising jurisdiction in a name change case, has no 

power to decide whether a minor child’s birth date should 

be changed.

For completeness, we note that another statutory scheme 

may be relevant, though it does not apply here. Druckenmiller 

seems to believe that “Vital Records”—which we understand 

to refer to DHHS—has the authority to make the requested 

birth date changes with a “court order.” This may be an 

oversimplification.

Nebraska’s vital statistics statutes 9—which govern the 

registration, reporting, and certification of vital events in 

Nebraska—cannot be read to grant any authority to amend 

foreign adoption certificates or federal certificates of citizenship. But those statutes do set forth a procedure for obtaining 

6 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-21,270 to 25-21,273 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. 

Supp. 2022).

7 See id.

8 Saint James Apt. Partners v. Universal Surety Co., ante p. 419, 5 N.W.3d 

179 (2024).

9 See §§ 71-601 to 71-649.
- 814 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER

Cite as 316 Neb. 807

an adoptive birth certificate in this situation, which requires 

first obtaining an adoption decree in a Nebraska court. 10

Because the county courts have exclusive original jurisdiction 

over adoption proceedings, 11 only those courts would have the 

authority to enter a decree used to obtain an adoptive birth 

certificate. We express no opinion regarding the merits of any 

attempt by Druckenmiller to comply with that procedure.

Purported Constitutional Authority

In the absence of any explicit statutory authority, 

Druckenmiller relies upon Neb. Const. art. V, § 9, in arguing that the district court had the authority to change the 

children’s birth dates in the name change proceedings. We 

disagree.

[6,7] Article V, § 9, of the Nebraska Constitution states that 

“[t]he district courts shall have both chancery and common 

law jurisdiction, and such other jurisdiction as the Legislature 

may provide . . . .” We have said that article V, § 9, of the 

Nebraska Constitution confers equity jurisdiction upon the 

district courts. 12 If a court of equity has properly acquired 

jurisdiction of a suit for equitable relief, it may make complete 

adjudication of all matters properly presented and involved 

in the case and grant relief, legal or equitable, as may be 

required and thus avoid unnecessary litigation. 13

[8] Here, Druckenmiller broadly contends that the instant 

cases are “in equity,” without pointing to a recognized source 

of equity jurisdiction. It is well settled that an action in equity 

must be founded on some recognized source of equity jurisdiction. 14 A few examples include civil actions for injunctive 

10 See §§ 71-626 and 71-627.02.

11 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-517(11) (Cum. Supp. 2022).

12 Charleen J. v. Blake O., 289 Neb. 454, 855 N.W.2d 587 (2014).

13 Schmid v. Simmons, 311 Neb. 48, 970 N.W.2d 735 (2022).

14 In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Maronica B., 314 Neb. 597, 992 

N.W.2d 457 (2023).
- 815 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER

Cite as 316 Neb. 807

relief 15 or for partition, 16 proceedings for the supervision of the 

administration of trusts, 17 divorce cases, 18 and issues of child 

custody. 19 Because the instant cases did not implicate a recognized source of equity jurisdiction, we reject Druckenmiller’s 

argument that the Nebraska Constitution granted the district 

court the authority to change the children’s birth dates in the 

name change proceedings.

[9] We also reject the notion that a court of equity may 

provide relief in a purely statutory proceeding beyond that 

provided or necessarily implied in the statute. 20 We have 

said that in dealing with legal rights, a court of equity adopts 

and follows the rules of law in all cases to which those rules 

are applicable, and whenever there is an explicit statute or a 

direct rule of law governing the case in all its circumstances, 

a court of equity is as much bound by it as would be a court 

of law. 21

[10,11] Stated differently, a court’s equitable powers cannot 

be used to provide relief that is contrary to statutory or constitutional requirements, 22 and “[c]ourts of equity can no more 

15 See, Omaha Fish and Wildlife Club, Inc. v. Community Refuse, Inc., 208 

Neb. 110, 302 N.W.2d 379 (1981); Village of Springfield v. Hevelone, 195 

Neb. 37, 236 N.W.2d 811 (1975).

16 See In re Estate of Kentopp. Kentopp v. Kentopp, 206 Neb. 776, 295 

N.W.2d 275 (1980).

17 See, In re Trust Estate of Myers, 151 Neb. 255, 37 N.W.2d 228 (1949); 

Burnham v. Bennison, 121 Neb. 291, 236 N.W. 745 (1931); Matteson v. 

Creighton University, 105 Neb. 219, 179 N.W. 1009 (1920).

18 See, Drennen v. Drennen, 229 Neb. 204, 426 N.W.2d 252 (1988); Wassung 

v. Wassung, 136 Neb. 440, 286 N.W. 340 (1939).

19 See, Benjamin M. v. Jeri S., 307 Neb. 733, 950 N.W.2d 381 (2020); 

Charleen J. v. Blake O., supra note 12; Susan L. v. Steven L., 273 Neb. 24, 

729 N.W.2d 35 (2007).

20 See 30A C.J.S. Equity § 4 (2019).

21 Guy Dean’s Lake Shore Marina v. Ramey, 246 Neb. 258, 518 N.W.2d 129 

(1994).

22 See Foster v. Com’r of Correction, 484 Mass. 1059, 146 N.E.3d 408 

(2020).
- 816 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER

Cite as 316 Neb. 807

disregard statutory and constitutional requirements and provisions than can courts of law.” 23 A court acting in equity may 

not provide for nonlegal, equitable remedies to avoid unduly 

harsh application of a statute. 24

[12] In these appeals, we conclude that the district court 

lacked jurisdiction over the birth date issue in the name change 

proceedings. Our disposition does not permit us to reach the 

merits of the birth date change requests. When a trial court 

lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of a claim, issue, 

or question, an appellate court also lacks the power to determine the merits of the claim, issue, or question presented to 

the lower court. 25 We express no opinion regarding any other 

avenues of relief that might be available.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we cannot conclude that the 

district court had the authority to decide the birth date change 

requests in these name change proceedings. We affirm the district court’s decrees.

Affirmed.

23 Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 327-28, 135 S. 

Ct. 1378, 191 L. Ed. 2d 471 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

24 See Stokes v. Millen Roofing Co., 466 Mich. 660, 649 N.W.2d 371 (2002).

25 State ex rel. Malone v. Baldonado-Bellamy, 307 Neb. 549, 950 N.W.2d 81 

(2020).