DeVaux v. DeVaux
Nebraska Supreme Court
514 N.W.2d 640 (1994)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Erin Zaback (plaintiff) filed in district court for dissolution of her marriage to Richard DeVaux (defendant). In 1989 the court entered its decree of dissolution, finding that one minor child was born to the marriage. The court awarded Zaback custody, subject to reasonable visitation rights of DeVaux, and ordered DeVaux to pay monthly child support. In 1990 Zaback filed an application to modify her dissolution decree to reflect that DeVaux was not the father of her minor child. Zaback requested that the court modify the decree by finding that DeVaux was not the natural father of the minor child and by terminating the child support and visitation provisions of the decree. Zaback had sexual relations with her current husband, Terry Zaback, during her marriage to DeVaux and did not inform DeVaux of her extramarital relations until after the dissolution decree had been entered. Zaback alleged that she had discovered through blood tests that DeVaux was not the father. DeVaux demurred to Zaback’s application, asserting that the minor child’s paternity was res judicata. The district court overruled the demurrer. The court found that Terry Zaback was the natural father of the minor child. The court terminated DeVaux’s support obligation and his visitation rights. DeVaux appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
