Court Opinion

ID: 9703841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:10:06.88556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:52.011347
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I do not disagree with the majority’s conclusion to the effect that in a proper proceeding blood tests may be properly ordered under the provisions of Rule 26(b) of the Nebraska Discovery Rules (rev. 1983). I do not, however, believe that the trial court’s order denying appellant an evidentiary hearing in *145the instant case was an abuse of discretion.
Appellant’s principal claim for a further evidentiary hearing is his “suspicion” that he is not the father of the child born to the appellee. The majority notes that “[although the precise factual basis for Gary’s denial of paternity is not stated in his motion,” that “such specificity was never requested.” I am not aware of any rule of law which requires one against whom a motion to set aside a decree has been filed to file a motion to make more definite and certain. The burden is upon the party seeking to set aside the judgment to allege facts sufficient to justify relief. See Smith v. Goodman, 100 Neb. 284, 159 N.W. 418 (1916).
The apparent reason for appellant’s failure to raise that issue earlier is his contention that the child was not born at the time the trial was held. While that may be so, the evidence is clear that there was sufficient time before the decree was entered to raise the issue, if, in fact, such an issue could have been raised. No allegations are made as to why appellant could not have moved to withdraw his rest and offer additional evidence after the child was born and before the decree was entered.
The evidence discloses that, while trial was held prior to the date the child was born on September 16, 1982, the decree was not entered until February 4, 1983, some 4V2 months after the child was born. On February 28,1983, appellant filed a motion nunc pro tunc to have the decree reflect that it was not entered until February 4, 1983. Yet he did not raise any issue about the paternity of the child. He filed a further motion on February 28, 1983, requesting a modification of the decree. That motion addressed itself to a host of minutiae involving personal property but did not seek release from responsibility for the support of the child because he was not the father. It was not until April 19, 1983, that he, for the first time, sought to be relieved of responsibility for the support of the minor child because “it is respondent’s belief that he is not the father of the child.” He had more than ample time to raise the issue, if indeed such an issue exists.
I believe that the allegation and the evidence are insufficient for us to say that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting appellant an evidentiary hearing based upon the *146sketchy allegation made so late after the fact.
Appellant maintains that he was advised the child was to be born in October, when, in fact, it was born on September 16, 1982, and because he was not with the appellee until near the end of December 1981, there is the possibility that the child may not be his. I am unable to follow that argument. Assuming that he and the appellee did not have sexual relations until the last day of December 1981, the most that can be said is that the child was born perhaps 2 weeks early. And if by “nearly the end of December, 1981,” it might be as early as the 23 d or 24th of December, the child was born after a gestation period of 267 days. That, standing alone, appears to me to be hardly sufficient to justify saying the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the decree and granting appellant the right to engage in discovery. It may very well have been that when the case was heard by the court, appellant did not know the child was to be born on September 16, 1982, but his apparent disregard of what he now contends is such a significant factor for nearly 7 months after the child was born, coupled with his very sketchy allegations, does not, in my view, constitute an abuse of discretion by the trial court. I would have affirmed the decision of the trial court in all respects.