Court Opinion

ID: 9741691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:00:35.0327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.518667
License: Public Domain

Simmons, C. J.,
dissenting.
The court’s opinion in this case does not touch the issue which is here for determination. We are not called upon nor do we have the right to redetermine the questions decided in Ruehle v. Ruehle, 161 Neb. 691, 74 N. W. 2d 689.
That decision became final. The trial court was bound by it. We are bound by it.
I have no disagreement with the rules of law as stated by the court which are: “Where a mandate of the Supreme Court makes the opinion of the court a part thereof by reference, the opinion should be examined in conjunction with the mandate to determine the nature and terms of the judgment to be entered or the action to be taken thereon.” “Section 42-312, R. R. S. 1943, specifically provides that the court in a divorce action retains jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties for the enforcement or modification of a judgment for maintenance of children, and prescribes the method by which a decree for child support may be modified.” “Where a divorce decree provides for the payment of stipulated sums monthly for the support of a minor child or children, contingent only upon a subsequent order of the court, such payments become vested in the payee as they accrue. The courts are without authority to reduce the amounts of such accrued payments.” “In a decree granting a wife a divorce and the custody of minor children, monthly installments of alimony and support become vested as they accrue, and unpaid, past-due portions thereof are final judgments beyond the power of the court to reduce by modification of the original decree.”
For- reasons stated later herein there is no proposal to change, alter, or reduce accrued and unpaid child support payments. They are fully recognized.
*40I agree with the rules of law stated in the concurring opinion, as follows: “When this court reverses; a decree as to a matter finally determined thereby, and remands the cause with directions to* enter a specific judgment or decree, the mandate of this court is final and conclusive upon all parties, as to all matters so directed, and no new defenses can be entertained or heard in opposition thereto.” “The decision of questions presented to this court in reviewing the proceedings of the district court becomes the law of the case and for purposes of the litigation settles conclusively the matters adjudicated expressly or by necessary implication.”
I hold that the law of the case rule requires an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court.
The opinion in Ruehle v. Ruehle, swpra, discussed first the pleadings and evidence and then announced this conclusion: “We conclude that there should be an accounting as to the child support payments which had accrued and were due up to October 12, 1948, with interest thereon at the legal rate, and that all credits should be given to the appellee for payments made by him for child support.” It then remanded the cause “to the trial court for determination of the amount of child support due on this phase of the case.”
Neither by the conclusion above quoted nor by the directions of the remand was the trial court limited to a determination of the “amount of the judgment for child support which remains unpaid.” This last quote is taken from Finnern v. Bruner, 167 Neb. 281, 92 N. W. 2d 785, which the court now says is “the kind of judgment which should have been entered on the mandate” in this case. But the Finnern judgment is not the judgment which the court ordered in the first opinion of this case.
The conclusion of the court in the first opinion above quoted is in two parts. - First it directs an accounting as to the child support payments which had accrued and were due to October 12, 1948, with interest thereon at the legal rate. Had the court stopped there in its conclu*41sion, and had it remanded the cause for determination on that basis there would be no disagreement between us now.
The rules of law relied on by the court would then be applicable, and are applicable to a determination of the accrued unpaid amount of the decree. The Finnern opinion would then be applicable.
But the court did not stop there. It further directed “that all credits should be given to the appellee for payments made by him for child support.”
Obviously that involves subtracting the “payments made” by Mr. Ruehle “for child support” from the amount accrued, due and unpaid on the judgment. The difference, if any, would be the amount of the judgment to be entered against Mr. Ruehle. I point out that the amount of those payments was an issue in the first case which was determined here for the opinion recites that Mr. Ruehle “alleged that the child support payments were made directly to- Aneita F. Ruehle or to the clerk of the district court until September 1948, * * (Emphasis supplied.)
It is obvious that the trial court accepted the conclusion of this court in the first opinion in this case and complied with the directions of the remand. Its decision is now reversed by ignoring that part of the conclusion which directs that “all credits should be given” Mr. Ruehle “for payments made by him for child support.”
The first part of the conclusion required but a simple computation of the amount due on the decree, the second part of the conclusion required an accounting of payments made for child support to Mrs. Ruehle and giving Mr. Ruehle credit for those payments.
The court’s opinion ignores the second provision of the remand order and in effect reads it out of the remand order. We are not here concerned with the correctness of the remand order. We are concerned with the fact of the remand order. It became the law of the case.
What, then, is the law of the case rule referred to, but *42not stated, in the concurring opinion. It is: As early as 1899 in an opinion by Norval, J., in Farmers & Merchants Bank v. German Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 229, 80 N. W. 820, this court held: “When a cause is remanded by this court with directions as to further proceedings, the court below has no power to do anything but carry out the directions thus given it.”
In Story v. Robertson, 5 Neb. (Unoff.) 404, 98 N. W. 825, in an opinion by Fawcett, C., it was held: “When the district court received the mandate of this court it was its duty to do just what it did in this case, literally obey the mandate.”
In Regouby v. Dawson County Irr. Co., 128 Neb. 531, 259 N. W. 365, in an opinion by Chappell, District Judge, we reversed the judgment and remanded the cause with directions to “compute the damages in accordance with the opinion of this court * * We held: “* * * when a case is sent back by the supreme court to the trial court with specific directions, the trial court has no alternative except to follow the directions given in the manner set forth therein.”
In Elliott v. Gooch Feed Mill Co., 147 Neb. 612, 24 N. W. 2d 561, in an opinion by Messmore, J., we held: “ ‘When a judgment of the district court is reversed and a cause remanded with specific directions, it is the duty of the district court to follow the mandate.’ ”
In De Lair v. De Lair, 148 Neb. 393, 27 N. W. 2d 540, in an opinion by Wenke, J., we held: “When a case is sent back by the Supreme Court to the trial court with specific directions, the trial court has no alternative except to follow the directions given in the manner set forth therein.”
In Rhoades v. State Real Estate Commission, 153 Neb. 625, 45 N. W. 2d 628, in an opinion by Boslaugh, J., we held: “When a case is remanded by this court to the district court with directions for its disposition, the district court must obey and perform the mandate of this court.”
*43In Stocker v. Wells, 155 Neb. 472, 52 N. W. 2d 284, in an opinion by Chappell, J., we held: “When a case is sent back by the Supreme Court to the trial court with specific directions, the trial court has no alternative except to follow the directions given in the manner set forth therein.”
In Jurgensen v. Ainscow, 160 Neb. 208, 69 N. W. 2d 856, in an opinion by Carter, J., we held: “When this court reverses a decree as to a matter finally determined thereby, and remands the cause with directions to enter a specific judgment or decree, the mandate of this court is final and conclusive upon all parties, as to all matters so directed, and no new defenses can be entertained or heard in opposition thereto.”
I submit that the trial court here literally followed the mandate of the former opinion and its judgment in doing so should be affirmed.
There are two other matters that I deem should be mentioned. The court in its opinion, and the concurring opinion, holds Mr. Ruehle to the stipulation of facts which is set out in full in the dissenting opinion of Carter, J., in the first decision here. It, however, refuses to hold Mrs. Ruehle bound by the same stipulation. That need not be further discussed. The mere statement of the fact is sufficient.
The court denies Mrs. Ruehle an allowance of attorneys’ fees. I agree. However, the reason given is: “Attorneys’ fees in divorce proceedings will ordinarily be denied where there appears no reasonable justification for the position taken by the party claiming them.”
The court, then, holds that there is “no reasonable justification for the position taken” by Mrs. Ruehle and at the same time grants her all relief she requests, save attorneys’ fees.
I am authorized to say that Carter, J., and Boslaugh, J., concur in this dissent.