S-23-0400 Emily Sulzle (Appellee) v. Joshua Sulzle (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County, Judge Susan I. Strong
Attorneys: Matt Catlett (Law Office of Matt Catlett for Appellant) and Nicholas R. Glasz (Glasz Law for Appellee)
Civil: Dissolution of marriage and contempt of court
Proceedings below: The district court vacated an order to show cause and entered an order modifying the decree of dissolution of marriage. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The district court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for new trial because: a) there was no written, filed order directing that the trial occur at the time the trial was actually held, and because Appellant did not personally appear at the trial; b) neither of Appellant’s attorneys of record appeared at the trial; c) the attorney who ostensibly represented Appellant at the trial had not filed an appearance as his attorney as of the trial, did not even personally appear at the trial, and did not file an appearance as Appellant’s attorney by the close of the next business day after the trial, as required by court rule; and d) Appellant swore in an affidavit that he had no notice of the trial; 2) Even if the district court did not err in not granting Appellant’s motion for new trial, it still erred in modifying the decree because there was no evidence of a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the children, and because there was insufficient evidence that the actual modifications adopted were in the children’s best interests; 3) The district court erred in delegating its authority to determine Appellant’s parenting time with Aurora and Olivia to Appellee; 4) In the event that the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for new trial is reversed, the district court judge should be ordered disqualified on remand due to the appearance of bias against Appellant; and 5) The district court erred in denying Appellant’s in forma pauperis application.