Jama R. Young v. Corey R. Miller

Lincoln, Nebraska pro se Plaintiff sought a protective order.



Miller and his counsel separately filed requests for a hearing to show cause for why the protection order should not be renewed. Miller's request stated he was contesting the renewal "on multiple grounds"; Miller's counsel requested a hearing because the request for renewal was untimely made pursuant to statute. The court granted the request for a hearing.



At the hearing, the court had Young's petition and affidavit marked as an exhibit and it was received without objection. Young confirmed she had no further evidence to offer. Miller's attorney requested the court to take judicial notice of its order entered on September 28, 2023, the request for renewal that was filed that same date, and the current request for renewal filed on October 9, 2024. The court agreed to do so, while also noting that the last pleading was Young's petition and affidavit that had just been received as an exhibit. The court inquired whether Young had "[a]ny comments" to which she responded she had a statement. Young proceeded to recite the reasons she was requesting a renewal of the protection order, but her statement was not made under oath. Upon completion of Young's statement, the court inquired whether Miller's counsel had any "comments" to which he responded "Yes." He proceeded to refute Young's statement through argument. The court engaged in further conversation with Young regarding the timing of her filing for renewal, but no sworn testimony was given during the hearing.



At the hearing, Miller's attorney argued that the request for a renewal was untimely pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-924(3)(b)(i) (Cum Supp. 2024) because that statute requires the request to renew be filed within 45 days prior to the expiration of the existing protection order and Young did not file within that time period. The court disagreed, noting that, "by the very terms of the [prior] order," it was "effective for one year from 10-21-2023," and Young had filed her petition for renewal on October 9, 2024.



Following the hearing, the district court entered an order affirming the ex parte renewal of the protection order. Miller appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to affirm the renewal and that Young requested a renewal outside of the time frame prescribed by § 42-924(3)(b)(i).



* * *



Legal issue Was the renewal of a domestic violence protection order untimely pursuant to Nebraska statutory requirements?



FAMILY LAW. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ORDERS. The case addresses an appeal concerning the ex parte renewal of a domestic violence protection order, examining whether the renewal was justified by sufficient evidence in accordance with statutory requirements and whether due process was adhered to, given the appellant's claim of untimely renewal.



PROCEDURAL LAW. EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS. The court analyzed the adequacy of evidence presented for the renewal of a domestic violence protection order, emphasizing the necessity of including all pertinent evidence and exhibits in the appellate record to support claims of insufficient evidence.



PROCEDURAL LAW. TIMELINESS AND DUE PROCESS. The appeal questions whether the application for the renewal of a protection order was filed within the statutory time frame, scrutinizing compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-924(3)(b)(i) concerning procedural deadlines and due process rights.



Key Phrases Ex parte renewal. Domestic violence protection order. Petition and affidavit for renewal. Insufficient evidence claim. Timeliness of renewal request.

Affirmed