- 757 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

David Lynn Metzler, appellant

Mary Grace Metzler, appellee

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 10, 2018. No. A-17-242.

1. Motions to Dismiss: Pleadings: Appeal and Error. A district court’s 

grant of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings is reviewed de novo, 

accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

2. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Determination of a jurisdictional issue that does not involve a factual dispute is a matter of law 

which requires an appellate court to reach its conclusions independent 

from a trial court.

3. Jurisdiction: Divorce. Under the doctrine of divisible divorce, divorce 

proceedings contain two principal components: (1) the dissolution 

of the marital status and (2) the adjudication of the incidences of 

the marriage.

4. Jurisdiction: Divorce: Child Support: Alimony. The divisibility doctrine holds that while a state court may have jurisdiction over the marriage to dissolve it, that same court may lack personal jurisdiction to 

adjudicate personal matters such as support or alimony.

5. Jurisdiction: Divorce. The dissolution of the marital status is generally considered an in rem proceeding where the marriage is the res 

adjudicated.

6. Jurisdiction: States. In rem proceedings require minimum contacts 

between a person’s interest in the res adjudicated and the forum state.

7. Jurisdiction: States: Domicile. Because states have a strong interest in 

the marital status of their residents, a marriage has sufficient contacts 

with a state to justify that state’s exercise of jurisdiction over it when 

one spouse has established a domicile therein.

8. ____: ____: ____. A nonresident spouse’s absence does not diminish a 

state’s interest in, or contacts with, the resident spouse’s marriage, even 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

04/24/2018 01:08 AM CDT
- 758 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

if the nonresident spouse has never traveled to the resident spouse’s 

new state.

9. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States: Domicile: Service of Process. If 

the resident spouse has established a bona fide domicile in a state and 

his or her service on the nonresident spouse satisfied procedural due 

process, the state has jurisdiction to adjudicate the resident spouse’s 

marital status.

10. Divorce: Actions: Domicile: Words and Phrases. The language of 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-349 (Reissue 2016) requiring an “actual residence 

in this state” means that one party is required to have a bona fide 

domicile in Nebraska for 1 year before commencement of a dissolution action.

11. Domicile: Intent: Words and Phrases. Domicile is obtained only 

through a person’s physical presence accompanied by the present intention to remain indefinitely at a location or site or by the present intention 

to make a location or site the person’s permanent or fixed home.

12. Domicile: Intent. The absence of either presence or intention thwarts 

the establishment of domicile.

13. Domicile. Once established, domicile continues until a new domicile 

is perfected.

14. Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. Personal jurisdiction is the power of 

a tribunal to subject and bind a particular entity to its decisions.

15. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. Before a court can exercise personal 

jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the court must determine, 

first, whether the long-arm statute is satisfied and, if the long-arm statute is satisfied, second, whether minimum contacts exist between the 

defendant and the forum state for personal jurisdiction over the defendant without offending due process.

16. ____: ____: ____. When a state construes its long-arm statute to confer 

jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause, 

the inquiry collapses into the single question of whether exercise of 

personal jurisdiction comports with due process.

17. ____: ____: ____. Due process for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant requires that the plaintiff allege specific acts by the 

defendant which establish that the defendant had the necessary minimum contacts before a Nebraska court can exercise jurisdiction over 

a person.

18. Jurisdiction: States. When considering the issue of personal jurisdiction, it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the 

defendant purposely avails himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and 

protections of its laws.
- 759 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

19. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. The benchmark for determining 

whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies due process is 

whether the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state are 

such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into 

court there.

20. Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. Subject matter jurisdiction deals 

with a court’s ability to hear a case; it is the power of a tribunal to 

hear and determine a case of the general class or category to which the 

proceedings in question belong and to deal with the general subject matter involved.

21. Motions to Dismiss: Pleadings. To prevail against a motion to dismiss 

for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

22. Actions: Pleadings. Civil actions are controlled by a liberal pleading 

regime; a party is only required to set forth a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

23. Rules of the Supreme Court: Pleadings. Dismissal under Neb. Ct. R. 

Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6) should be granted only in the unusual case in which 

a plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint 

that there is some insuperable bar to relief.

Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: Georg

A. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed 

remanded for further proceedings.

Stephanie Weber Milone, of Milone Law Office, for 

appellant.

Todd O. Engleman, of Nebraska Legal Group, for appellee.

Moore, Chief Judge, and Riedmann, Judge, and In

Judge, Retired.

Moore, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

David Lynn Metzler appeals from an order of the district 

court for Sarpy County that dismissed his complaint for dissolution of marriage. We conclude that the court erred in 

dismissing David’s complaint with respect to his request for 

the court to dissolve his marriage. However, we find that the 

district court was correct in dismissing David’s complaint 
- 760 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

with respect to issues relating to child custody, parenting time, 

child support, and division of property and debts. Therefore, 

we affirm in part, and in part reverse and remand for further proceedings.

II. BACKGROUND

On October 17, 2016, David filed a pro se complaint for 

dissolution of marriage in the district court for Sarpy County. 

David used a preprinted complaint for dissolution of marriage 

(with children) form for self-represented litigants, which form 

is available on the Nebraska Judicial Branch website. In his 

complaint, David set forth his address in Sarpy County and 

alleged that he has lived in Nebraska for more than 1 year 

with the intention of making this state a permanent home. 

David alleged that his spouse, Mary Grace Metzler, lives at a 

particular address in Pennsylvania. The complaint stated that 

David and Mary were married on October 27, 2000, in British 

Columbia, Canada, and that the marriage is irretrievably broken. The complaint contains the names and years of birth of 

the parties’ four children. The complaint set forth the children’s addresses and the persons with whom the children have 

lived for the last 5 years. The complaint referenced another 

proceeding in a British Columbia court concerning the custody 

of or parenting time with the children, including a notation of 

“December 08, 2015, determination of guardians.” The form 

complaint includes a paragraph that states, “[c]hild custody, 

parenting time, or other access, and child support are not 

contested.” The form complaint also includes paragraphs that 

state property and debts have been accumulated and should be 

fairly divided. However, a handwritten notation appears below 

these paragraphs, which reads “[n]one to be divided” followed 

by the initials “DM.” David requested that the court dissolve 

his marriage. After the paragraph requesting that the court 

fairly divide the property and debts between him and Mary, a 

handwritten note again states “[n]one to be divided” followed 

by the initials “DM.” As a further request, David checked the 
- 761 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

box next to “[a]ward my spouse and me joint legal and joint 

physical custody of the child(ren).” The form complaint also 

contained paragraphs requesting that the court order a parenting plan and award child support according to the Nebraska 

Child Support Guidelines.

On February 9, 2017, Mary filed a verified motion to dismiss, claiming that Nebraska courts lack personal jurisdiction 

of her and subject matter jurisdiction over David’s complaint. 

Additionally, she claimed David’s complaint failed to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. On February 27, the 

district court held a hearing on Mary’s motion to dismiss. The 

district court filed an order dated February 28, 2017, granting 

Mary’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that it was “without 

jurisdiction to make determination” on child custody and support because the children have never resided in Nebraska and 

a British Columbia court issued a prior order on these issues. 

Despite David’s request that the court retain jurisdiction to litigate the dissolution, the court reasoned that “the issues of child 

custody and support are so integrated in the subject matter of 

the case that Nebraska is not the most convenient forum, nor 

the appropriate forum.” David timely filed this appeal.

III. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

David assigns the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for dissolution of marriage.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] A district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss on the 

pleadings is reviewed de novo, accepting the allegations in 

the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in 

favor of the nonmoving party. Frenchman-Cambridge Irr. Dist. 

v. Dept. of Nat. Res., 297 Neb. 999, 902 N.W.2d 159 (2017).

[2] Determination of a jurisdictional issue that does not 

involve a factual dispute is a matter of law which requires an 

appellate court to reach its conclusions independent from a 

trial court. Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 297 Neb. 

938, 902 N.W.2d 147 (2017).
- 762 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

V. ANALYSIS

1. Personal Jurisdic

David argues that because Mary was personally served with 

a summons and a copy of his complaint, the district court 

acquired personal jurisdiction over her. Mary counters that 

because she has never been to Nebraska, she has not maintained “‘minimum contacts’” with the state to be subject to 

its court’s jurisdiction. Brief for appellee at 5. Based on the 

authority that follows, we conclude that there is a distinction 

between personal jurisdiction over the marriage of a resident 

spouse and personal jurisdiction over a nonresident spouse. We 

find that because David has established the requisite domicile 

in Nebraska, his marriage with Mary has sufficient contact 

with the state to justify the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the marriage and David’s request to dissolve it.

[3,4] Under the doctrine of divisible divorce, divorce proceedings contain two principal components: (1) the dissolution 

of the marital status and (2) the adjudication of the incidences 

of the marriage. See, Tiedeman v. Tiedeman, 195 Neb. 15, 

236 N.W.2d 807 (1975); Harvey v. Harvey, 6 Neb. App. 524, 

575 N.W.2d 167 (1998). The divisibility doctrine holds that 

while a state court may have jurisdiction over the marriage 

to dissolve it, that same court may lack personal jurisdiction 

to adjudicate personal matters such as support or alimony. 

Tiedeman v. Tiedeman, supra; Harvey v. Harvey, supra. As 

discussed below, Nebraska courts have jurisdiction to dissolve 

David’s marriage with Mary, but they lack the necessary personal jurisdiction over Mary and her children to adjudicate the 

more personal matters, such as child custody, parenting time, 

child support, or division of assets and debts.

(a) Dissolution of Marital Status

[5-7] The dissolution of the marital status is generally considered an in rem proceeding. Stucky v. Stucky, 186 Neb. 636, 

643, 185 N.W.2d 656, 660 (1971) (Newton, J., dissenting) (“an 

action for divorce is universally considered to be an action 

in rem”). The marriage is the res adjudicated. 27A C.J.S. 
- 763 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

Divorce § 10 (2016). In rem proceedings require minimum 

contacts between a person’s interest in the res adjudicated and 

the forum state. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S. Ct. 

2569, 53 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1977). Because states have a strong 

interest in the marital status of their residents, a marriage has 

sufficient contacts with a state to justify that state’s exercise 

of jurisdiction over it when one spouse has established a domicile therein:

Domicil [sic] creates a relationship to the state which 

is adequate for numerous exercises of state power. 

[Citations omitted.] Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders. The marriage relation 

creates problems of large social importance. Protection 

of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of 

marital responsibilities are but a few of commanding 

problems in the field of domestic relations with which 

the state must deal. Thus it is plain that each state, by 

virtue of its command over its domiciliaries and its large 

interest in the institution of marriage, can alter within its 

own borders the marriage status of the spouse domiciled 

there, even though the other spouse is absent. There is no 

constitutional barrier if the form and nature of the substituted service [citation omitted] meet the requirements of 

due process.

Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298-99, 63 S. Ct. 

207, 67 L. Ed. 279 (1942).

[8,9] A nonresident spouse’s absence does not diminish a 

state’s interest in, or contacts with, the resident spouse’s marriage, even if the nonresident spouse has never traveled to the 

resident spouse’s new state. See id. If the resident spouse has 

established a bona fide domicile in a state and his or her service 

on the nonresident spouse satisfied procedural due process, the 

state has jurisdiction to adjudicate the resident spouse’s marital 

status. See, Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541, 68 S. Ct. 1213, 92 L. 

Ed. 1561 (1948); Williams v. North Carolina, supra; Vanvelzor 

v. Vanvelzor, 219 P.3d 184 (Alaska 2009); Collins v. Collins, 
- 764 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

165 Ohio App. 3d 71, 844 N.E.2d 910 (2006); Bartsch v. 

Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3 (Iowa 2001); Taylor v. Jarrett, 191 

Ariz. 550, 959 P.2d 807 (Ariz. App. 1998); Smith v. Smith, 

459 N.W.2d 785 (N.D. 1990); In re Marriage of Rinderknecht, 

174 Ind. App. 382, 367 N.E.2d 1128 (1977); Stottlemyer v. 

Stottlemyer, 458 Pa. 503, 329 A.2d 892 (1974). See, also, 

Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 71 (1971).

[10-13] David satisfied Nebraska’s residency requirement 

to obtain a divorce. In relevant part, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-349 

(Reissue 2016) provides as follows:

No action for dissolution of marriage may be brought 

unless at least one of the parties has had actual residence 

in this state with a bona fide intention of making this 

state his or her permanent home for at least one year prior 

to the filing of the complaint . . . .

The Nebraska Supreme Court has interpreted the language 

of § 42-349 requiring an “actual residence in this state” to 

mean that one party is required to have a bona fide domicile 

in Nebraska for 1 year before commencement of a dissolution 

action. Catlett v. Catlett, 23 Neb. App. 136, 869 N.W.2d 368 

(2015). Domicile is obtained only through a person’s physical presence accompanied by the present intention to remain 

indefinitely at a location or site or by the present intention to 

make a location or site the person’s permanent or fixed home. 

Id. The absence of either presence or intention thwarts the 

establishment of domicile. Id. Once established, domicile continues until a new domicile is perfected. Id.

In David’s complaint for dissolution of marriage, he alleged 

that he has lived in Nebraska for more than 1 year with the 

intent of making this state a permanent home, which Mary 

does not dispute. Accepting the allegations in the complaint 

as true, we conclude David is a resident of Nebraska under 

§ 42-349 who can properly petition a Nebraska court to dissolve his marriage.

In addition, David satisfied procedural due process by complying with the process service requirements for dissolution 

proceedings. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-352 (Reissue 2016) states 
- 765 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

that “[s]ummons [for a proceeding under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§§ 42-347 to 42-381 (Reissue 2016)] shall be served upon 

the other party to the marriage by personal service or in the 

manner provided in section 25-517.02.” Mary was personally 

served by a county sheriff in Pennsylvania, and therefore, 

David complied with the service requirement of § 42-352. As 

a result, the district court had jurisdiction to dissolve David 

and Mary’s marriage.

Mary cites the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decisions in 

Stucky v. Stucky, 186 Neb. 636, 185 N.W.2d 656 (1971), and 

York v. York, 219 Neb. 883, 367 N.W.2d 133 (1985), to support her argument that the district court lacks jurisdiction to 

dissolve her marriage because it lacks personal jurisdiction of 

her. We find these cases to be factually distinguishable. The 

principles stated in each are consistent with our analysis.

In Stucky v. Stucky, supra, the parties resided together in 

Nebraska, but upon separation, the husband left the state. The 

husband returned to Nebraska only twice after the parties’ 

separation. However, he continued to deposit money in a joint 

bank account in Nebraska, he maintained credit accounts and 

utilities on the family home in Nebraska in his name, and the 

parties made joint mortgage payments. Based upon the husband’s contacts with Nebraska, the Nebraska Supreme Court 

determined that the district court had in personam jurisdiction 

over the husband to enter a personal judgment for support, 

alimony, and costs. The decree also awarded the husband certain property.

In York v. York, supra, the parties were married in Nebraska, 

lived in the state together for approximately 17 years, and 

had five children born here. The parties also owned a home 

together in Nebraska. The husband moved out of state and 

was personally served with summons upon the filing of the 

wife’s action for dissolution. The Nebraska Supreme Court 

determined that Nebraska had in personam jurisdiction over 

the presently nonresident husband, since Nebraska was the last 

place of marital domicile and his wife and children still resided 

in Nebraska.
- 766 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

While the above cases support the proposition that a court 

cannot make determinations about the incidences of marriage 

without personal jurisdiction, they do not deny a court’s ability 

to grant a resident spouse’s request for dissolution of a marriage. Because a court does not need personal jurisdiction of 

the nonresident spouse to adjudicate the marital status of the 

resident spouse, the principles outlined in Stucky and York do 

not apply here.

Nebraska courts have jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage 

so long as the petitioner meets the residency requirements 

and procedural due process is satisfied. After our de novo 

review of the record, we conclude the district court erred 

when it dismissed David’s petition requesting a dissolution of 

his marriage.

(b) Incidences of Marriage

[14,15] On the other hand, Nebraska courts lack personal jurisdiction over Mary to adjudicate personal matters 

that are incidences of the marriage, such as child custody, 

parenting time, child support, and division of property and 

debts. Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to 

subject and bind a particular entity to its decisions. RFD-TV 

v. WildOpenWest Finance, 288 Neb. 318, 849 N.W.2d 107 

(2014). Before a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a 

nonresident defendant, the court must determine, first, whether 

the long-arm statute is satisfied and, if the long-arm statute is 

satisfied, second, whether minimum contacts exist between the 

defendant and the forum state for personal jurisdiction over the 

defendant without offending due process. Id.

[16] Nebraska’s long-arm statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-536 

(Reissue 2016), provides that a court may exercise personal 

jurisdiction over a person “[w]ho has any . . . contact with 

or maintains any . . . relation to this state to afford a basis 

for the exercise of personal jurisdiction consistent with the 

Constitution of the United States.” When a state construes 

its long-arm statute to confer jurisdiction to the fullest extent 
- 767 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

permitted by the Due Process Clause, the inquiry collapses 

into the single question of whether exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. RFD-TV v. WildOpenWest 

Finance, supra.

[17-19] Due process for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant requires that the plaintiff allege specific 

acts by the defendant which establish that the defendant had 

the necessary minimum contacts before a Nebraska court can 

exercise jurisdiction over a person. Id. When considering the 

issue of personal jurisdiction, it is essential in each case that 

there be some act by which the defendant purposely avails 

himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities 

within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Id. The benchmark for determining whether 

the exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies due process is 

whether the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum 

state are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate 

being haled into court there. Id.

Here, there is no dispute that Mary and their children 

have never had any contact with Nebraska whatsoever. Mary 

and David were married, had four children, and separated 

in Canada. Mary and their children have never traveled to 

Nebraska. While David alleged there was no marital property 

or debts for the court to divide, the form complaint requested a 

fair division of property and debts. Further, although the complaint acknowledges a prior proceeding concerning custody of 

the children in a British Columbia court, the form complaint 

included a paragraph requesting that the court grant David 

joint legal and physical custody of the children. The form 

complaint also requested that the court determine a parenting 

plan and set child support. To the extent that David’s complaint 

included requests for relief that are personal in nature, i.e., 

child custody, parenting time, child support, and division of 

property and debts, we find the district court did not err in dismissing these requests in the complaint due to lack of personal 

jurisdiction over Mary.
- 768 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

2. Subject Matter Jurisdi

David argues the district court also had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate his complaint for divorce. Mary disagrees, 

arguing the Nebraska courts lack subject matter jurisdiction of 

David’s divorce petition because there are no marital assets 

in Nebraska.

[20] Subject matter jurisdiction deals with a court’s ability to hear a case; it is the power of a tribunal to hear and 

determine a case of the general class or category to which the 

proceedings in question belong and to deal with the general 

subject matter involved. House v. House, 24 Neb. App. 595, 

894 N.W.2d 362 (2017). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-351 (Reissue 

2016) provides in relevant part as follows:

(1) In proceedings under sections 42-347 to 42-381, 

the court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into such matters, make such investigations, and render such judgments 

and make such orders, both temporary and final, as are 

appropriate concerning the status of the marriage, the 

custody and support of minor children, the support of 

either party, the settlement of the property rights of the 

parties, and the award of costs and attorney’s fees.

(Emphasis supplied.) As discussed above, David’s complaint 

requests the dissolution of his marriage, which is clearly within 

the district court’s jurisdiction. Based upon our de novo review 

of the record, we conclude that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate David’s divorce under 

§§ 42-349 and 42-351. We find the district court erred in granting Mary’s motion to dismiss David’s complaint for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

3. Failure to State Cl

Last, David argues that his complaint contains all the allegations required by § 42-349 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-353 

(Reissue 2016). Therefore, it states a claim upon which 

relief may be granted, and the district court should not have 

dismissed it based upon Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6). 

We agree.
- 769 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

[21-23] To prevail against a motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Davis v. State, 297 

Neb. 955, 902 N.W.2d 165 (2017). Nebraska is a notice pleading jurisdiction. Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 297 

Neb. 1, 899 N.W.2d 227 (2017). Civil actions are controlled 

by a liberal pleading regime: a party is only required to set 

forth a short and plain statement of the claim, showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. Id. Dismissal under § 6-1112(b)(6) 

should be granted only in the unusual case in which a plaintiff 

includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint that 

there is some insuperable bar to relief. In re Interest of Noah 

B. et al., 295 Neb. 764, 891 N.W.2d 109 (2017).

Section 42-353 details the allegations a dissolution of marriage complaint must contain:

The complaint shall include the following:

(1) The name and address of the plaintiff and his or 

her attorney, except that a plaintiff who is living in an 

undisclosed location because of safety concerns is only 

required to disclose the county and state of his or her 

residence and, in such case, shall provide an alternative 

address for the mailing of notice;

(2) The name and address, if known, of the defendant;

(3) The date and place of marriage;

(4) The name and year of birth of each child whose 

custody or welfare may be affected by the proceedings 

and whether (a) a parenting plan as provided in the 

Parenting Act has been developed and (b) child custody, 

parenting time, visitation, or other access or child support is a contested issue;

(5) If the plaintiff is a party to any other pending 

action for divorce, separation, or dissolution of marriage, 

a statement as to where such action is pending;

(6) Reference to any existing restraining orders, protection orders, or criminal no-contact orders regarding any 

party to the proceedings;
- 770 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

25 Nebraska Appellate Repor

METZLER v. METZLER

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 757

(7) A statement of the relief sought by the plaintiff, 

including adjustment of custody, property, and support 

rights; and

(8) An allegation that the marriage is irretrievably 

broken if the complaint is for dissolution of marriage or 

an allegation that the two persons who have been legally 

married shall thereafter live separate and apart if the complaint is for a legal separation.

David’s complaint contained each of the allegations required 

above. Therefore, we conclude that David stated a claim upon 

which the district court could grant relief and that the district 

court erred in granting Mary’s motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim.

VI. CONCLUSION

The district court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate David’s request for a dissolution of his 

marriage, and David’s complaint stated a cause of action for 

such dissolution. However, the district court lacked personal 

jurisdiction of Mary to adjudicate issues relating to child custody, parenting time, child support, and division of property 

and debts. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of any claims 

contained in the complaint for child custody, parenting time, 

child support, and division of property and debts. We reverse 

the dismissal of the request for a dissolution of marriage 

contained in the complaint and remand the cause for further proceedings.

 Affirmed in part, and in part rever

remanded for further proceed