Opinion ID: 1274461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: james' cross appeal

Text: James argues in his cross-appeal that the district court erred in not awarding attorney fees for expenses he incurred in obtaining the order regarding the production of family photographs. While James prevailed in his motion to produce the photographs, we note in our de novo review of the record that the road to the... hearing was not entirely smooth on the part of either party. Riggs, 261 Neb. at 358, 622 N.W.2d at 870. The record shows that both parties were dissatisfied with the manner in which the photographs were being exchanged. Furthermore, the district court heard and observed the parties at the hearing on James' motion, and we cannot say, based on this record, that the district court abused its discretion in not awarding attorney fees to James. See id. We have also reviewed James' remaining assignments of error regarding the district court's failure to find the existence of a joint custody arrangement and its denial of his motion to amend the bill of exceptions. Upon our de novo review of the record, we determine that these assignments of error are without merit. Additionally, James requests attorney fees on appeal resulting from his motion to amend the bill of exceptions. Having determined that James' assignment of error regarding the bill of exceptions is without merit, we likewise find that James is not entitled to attorney fees.