Leaf Supreme Prods. v. Bachman

- 751 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
LEAF SUPREME PRODS. v. BACHMAN
Cite as 318 Neb. 751
Leaf Supreme Products, LLC, appellee, v.
James Bachman et al., appellants.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed April 4, 2025. 	No. S-24-191.
1. Contempt: Appeal and Error. In a civil contempt proceeding where
a party seeks remedial relief for an alleged violation of a court order,
an appellate court employs a three-part standard of review in which (1)
the trial court’s resolution of issues of law is reviewed de novo, (2) the
trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and (3) the trial
court’s determinations of whether a party is in contempt and of the sanc-
tion to be imposed are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
2. Judgments: Final Orders: Words and Phrases. A judgment is the
final determination of the rights of the parties in an action.
3. Debtors and Creditors: Judgments. An order requiring a party to
appear for a debtor’s examination is void if it is issued before the entry
of judgment, and a later judgment does not retroactively validate the
void order.
4. Judgments: Contempt. Refusal to obey a void order or judgment is
not contempt.
5. Contempt: Notice. A court cannot hold a person or party in contempt
unless the order or consent decree gave clear warning that the conduct
in question was required or proscribed.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, J Russell
Derr, Judge. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
James E. Bachman for appellants.
Raymond R. Aranza and Alexandria M. Emig, of Walentine
O’Toole, L.L.P., for appellee.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 08:18 AM CDT

- 752 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
LEAF SUPREME PRODS. v. BACHMAN
Cite as 318 Neb. 751
Funke, 	C.J., 	Miller-Lerman, 	Cassel, 	Stacy, 	Papik,
Freudenberg, and Bergevin, JJ.
Papik, J.
A Nebraska statute authorizes trial courts, after the entry of
judgment, to order a judgment debtor to appear and answer
questions posed by the judgment creditor regarding the judg-
ment debtor’s property. This is often referred to as a “debtor’s
examination.” In this appeal, the district court ordered James
Bachman and Adella Bachman to sit for a debtor’s examina-
tion but did so before it had entered a final judgment against
them. The Bachmans did not comply with the district court’s
order or subsequent orders directing action on their part,
and eventually, the district court held them in contempt. The
Bachmans now appeal the district court’s order holding them
in contempt. They argue that the order requiring them to sit for
a debtor’s examination was void because it was entered prior
to final judgment and that any subsequent district court orders
were void as well. We agree with the Bachmans and therefore
vacate the finding of contempt and remand the cause for fur-
ther proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
Bachmans Ordered to Appear
for Debtor’s Examination.
The record in this appeal tells us little about the underlying
dispute that led to this lawsuit. We do know that Leaf Supreme
Products, LLC (Leaf Supreme), sued the Bachmans and that
the Bachmans asserted counterclaims against Leaf Supreme.
We also know that a claim for conversion Leaf Supreme
asserted against the Bachmans was tried to a jury and that the
jury found in Leaf Supreme’s favor and awarded damages of
approximately $200,000.
The Bachmans apparently believed that after the jury’s
verdict was entered on the conversion claim, the district court
had resolved all claims between the parties. The Bachmans
attempted to appeal at that time. The Nebraska Court of

- 753 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
LEAF SUPREME PRODS. v. BACHMAN
Cite as 318 Neb. 751
Appeals, however, concluded that some claims asserted by
the parties remained unresolved and dismissed the appeal for
that reason.
After the Court of Appeals dismissed the Bachmans’ appeal,
Leaf Supreme, eager to collect the damages it had been awarded
for conversion, filed motions in the district court, pursuant to
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1565 (Reissue 2016), requesting that the
court order the Bachmans to sit for a debtor’s examination. The
district court granted Leaf Supreme’s request and ordered the
Bachmans to appear for a debtor’s examination and to produce
a set of specifically identified financial records, along with
“any and all other records that may be required to identify
assets to be used to pay the judgment in this matter.” The dis-
trict court entered this order on February 3, 2023.
District Court Resolves All Claims.
Three days after entering its order requiring the Bachmans
to appear for a debtor’s examination, the district court issued—
on February 6, 2023—what it styled as a “Final Order.” In that
document, the district court noted that the Court of Appeals had
dismissed the Bachmans’ appeal because the Court of Appeals
determined that all claims of all parties had not been resolved.
The district court stated that after the jury trial, it believed that
all claims of all parties in the action had been resolved but that
after reviewing the filings in the case, it understood why the
Court of Appeals had dismissed the appeal.
The district court went on to expressly state that all claims
of all parties had been either waived or resolved.
Bachmans Held in Contempt.
The Bachmans refused to comply with the district court’s
order requiring that they appear for a debtor’s examination.
On May 4, 2023, the district court issued an order holding
the Bachmans in contempt for failing to comply. The order
listed actions the Bachmans were required to take to have
“this Order of Contempt removed.” The actions included the

- 754 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
LEAF SUPREME PRODS. v. BACHMAN
Cite as 318 Neb. 751
Bachmans’ producing financial information identified by the
district court by May 20 and appearing to answer questions
regarding their financial interests and sources of income by
June 15.
On September 7, 2023, the district court issued an order
stating that the Bachmans had failed to comply with its May 4
order. As a sanction, the district court required the Bachmans
to pay $10,000 to Leaf Supreme to cover attorney fees
expended by Leaf Supreme in pursuing the debtor’s examina-
tion. The district court also ordered the Bachmans to produce
the same financial information it identified in its May 4 order
and to appear to answer questions regarding their financial
interests and sources of income. The district court’s order
required that the Bachmans produce the financial information
by various dates in June 2023, which had already passed by
the time of the September 7 order. The September 7 order
did not set a date by which the Bachmans were to appear
to answer questions regarding their financial interests and
sources of income.
Then, on March 1, 2024, the district court entered an order
again noting that the Bachmans had failed to comply with
its orders. The district court concluded that the Bachmans’
refusal was willful and that they should be held in contempt.
The district court ordered them to report to the county jail
to be incarcerated for a sentence of at least 30 days, but it
also provided that the Bachmans could purge the contempt
by producing the information the district court had ordered
them to produce and by paying Leaf Supreme $13,000 for
legal fees it had incurred in attempting to enforce the district
court’s orders. The district court also ordered the Bachmans
to pay an additional $3,000 to Leaf Supreme “for counsel’s
efforts to enforce the [o]rders of this [c]ourt.”
Within 30 days of the district court’s March 1, 2024, con-
tempt order, the Bachmans perfected an appeal. The Court of
Appeals entered an order staying the district court’s March
1 order, pending appeal. We thereafter moved the case to

- 755 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
LEAF SUPREME PRODS. v. BACHMAN
Cite as 318 Neb. 751
our docket pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum.
Supp. 2024).
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The Bachmans assign that the district court erred by holding
them in contempt.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] In a civil contempt proceeding where a party seeks reme-
dial relief for an alleged violation of a court order, an appel-
late court employs a three-part standard of review in which
(1) the trial court’s resolution of issues of law is reviewed de
novo, (2) the trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for
clear error, and (3) the trial court’s determinations of whether
a party is in contempt and of the sanction to be imposed are
reviewed for abuse of discretion. Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 311 Neb.
495, 973 N.W.2d 171 (2022).
ANALYSIS
The Bachmans argue that the district court erred by hold-
ing them in contempt for refusing to comply with a void
order. They contend that the district court’s February 3, 2023,
order was void because it was entered prior to the entry of a
final judgment. They also assert the district court’s subsequent
orders were void because they were based on a void order.
District Court’s February 3, 2023,
Order Was Void.
We begin our analysis with the question of whether the dis-
trict court’s February 3, 2023, order requiring the Bachmans
to appear for a debtor’s examination was void. As alluded to
in the introduction of this opinion, a Nebraska statute autho-
rizes trial courts to order a debtor’s examination. That statute
provides:
At any time after the entry of judgment against the
judgment debtor, or one of several debtors in the same
action, the judgment creditor is entitled to an order from
the county court or the district court of the county (1) in

- 756 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
LEAF SUPREME PRODS. v. BACHMAN
Cite as 318 Neb. 751
which the debtor resides, (2) if the debtor does not reside
in the state, where [the] judgment was rendered, or (3)
in which a transcript of judgment has been filed, requir-
ing the debtor to appear and answer concerning his or
her property before the judge of such court or a referee
appointed by the judge of such court at a time and place
specified in the order within the county to which the
order was issued.
§ 25-1565 (emphasis supplied).
[2] As the italicized language above makes clear, the statute
authorizes a court to order a debtor’s examination after the
entry of judgment. In this case, however, the district court
ordered the Bachmans to appear for a debtor’s examination
before it had entered a judgment. A judgment is the final
determination of the rights of the parties in an action. Florence
Lake Investments v. Berg, 312 Neb. 183, 978 N.W.2d 308
(2022). See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1301(1) (Cum. Supp.
2024). It was not until the district court finally ruled on all
claims of all parties on February 6, 2023, that it finally deter-
mined the rights of all parties to the action and thereby entered
a judgment.
The Bachmans argue that the district court’s order requir-
ing that they appear for a debtor’s examination was not only
contrary to § 25-1565 but was also void. We agree. We have
previously recognized that a garnishment in aid of execu-
tion issued before judgment is void. See Cattle Nat. Bank &
Trust Co. v. Watson, 293 Neb. 943, 880 N.W.2d 906 (2016).
We have likewise recognized that a writ of execution issued
before judgment is void. See id. And we have concluded that
a subsequent judgment “does not have a retroactive effect to
validate” a void writ of execution or garnishment. Id. at 972,
880 N.W.2d at 928.
[3] Leaf Supreme has offered us no reason—nor can we
conceive of any reason—to conclude that an order requiring
a debtor’s examination should be treated differently than a
garnishment in aid of execution or writ of execution. Both a

- 757 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
LEAF SUPREME PRODS. v. BACHMAN
Cite as 318 Neb. 751
garnishment in aid of execution and a writ of execution “nec-
essarily follow a judgment,” id. at 967, 880 N.W.2d at 926,
and the same is true of a debtor’s examination: It is a tool for
collection on a judgment, an endeavor which only becomes
possible once a judgment actually exists. See id. at 963, 880
N.W.2d at 923 (holding that garnishment proceeding “must be
supported by a judgment in esse, that is, a judgment in actual
existence or, literally, in being” (internal quotation marks omit-
ted)). We therefore hold that an order requiring a party to
appear for a debtor’s examination is void if it is issued before
the entry of judgment, and that a later judgment does not retro-
actively validate the void order.
Bachmans Cannot Be Held in Contempt.
[4] Having found that the February 3, 2023, order requir-
ing the Bachmans to appear for a debtor’s examination was
void, we turn to whether the Bachmans could legally be held
in contempt for their failure to comply with the district court’s
orders. On this issue, Leaf Supreme can make no real argument
that the Bachmans could be held in contempt for refusing to
comply with the February 3 order. We have long recognized
that the refusal to obey a void order or judgment is not con-
tempt. Davis v. Moats, 308 Neb. 757, 956 N.W.2d 682 (2021).
Because we have determined that the February 3 order was
void, the Bachmans cannot be held in contempt for refusing to
comply with it.
But while Leaf Supreme all but concedes that the Bachmans
could not be held in contempt for refusing to obey the district
court’s February 3, 2023, order, it argues that the district court
could and did hold the Bachmans in contempt for refusing to
obey the district court’s subsequent orders. For reasons we
will explain, we disagree.
The Bachmans could not legally be held in contempt for
refusing to comply with the district court’s May 4, 2023,
order. That order found the Bachmans were in contempt of the
district court’s February 3 order and listed actions they must

- 758 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
LEAF SUPREME PRODS. v. BACHMAN
Cite as 318 Neb. 751
take to purge the contempt. But an order finding a party in
contempt of a void order is also void. See Davis, supra. The
district court could not validly order the Bachmans to take
actions to purge contempt when its finding of contempt was
based on the Bachmans’ refusal to comply with a void order.
Leaf Supreme fares no better with its argument that the
Bachmans could be held in contempt for violating the district
court’s September 7, 2023, order. According to Leaf Supreme,
the portion of the September 7 order requiring the Bachmans
to produce financial information identified by the district court
and to appear to answer questions regarding their financial
interests and sources of income was a “new and distinct order
in aid of execution.” Brief for appellee at 18. Leaf Supreme
asks us to find that the Bachmans could be and were held in
contempt for failing to comply with those directions of the
district court. Leaf Supreme’s argument, however, faces a
number of obstacles.
As an initial matter, the directives in the district court’s
September 7, 2023, order were confusing in some respects. As
noted above, the district court’s September 7 order instructed
the Bachmans to produce financial information by various
dates in June 2023, which had already passed. The same order
required the Bachmans to answer questions related to their
financial interests and sources of income but set no date by
which they were to do so.
But even if the foregoing issues were set aside, it is far
from clear to us that the district court’s directions in the
September 7, 2023, order were, as Leaf Supreme contends, a
“new and distinct order in aid of execution,” as opposed to an
attempt by the district court to enforce earlier void orders. The
actions the district court ordered the Bachmans to take in the
September 7 order were substantially identical to the actions
the district court ordered the Bachmans to take to purge its
earlier finding of contempt in the May 4 order. On top of that,
we see no language in the September 7 order plainly stat-
ing that the September 7 order is, as Leaf Supreme claims, a

- 759 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
LEAF SUPREME PRODS. v. BACHMAN
Cite as 318 Neb. 751
stand-alone order in aid of execution, unrelated to the district
court’s earlier void order requiring a debtor’s examination.
[5] The fact that the September 7, 2023, order does not
make clear that it was a separate order in aid of execution
matters. A court cannot hold a person or party in contempt
unless the order or consent decree gave clear warning that the
conduct in question was required or proscribed. Smeal Fire
Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier, 279 Neb. 661, 782 N.W.2d 848
(2010), disapproved on other grounds, Hossaini v. Vaelizadeh,
283 Neb. 369, 808 N.W.2d 867 (2012). Because the September
7 order did not clearly indicate it was a new, separate order in
aid of execution, we conclude that it did not give clear warn-
ing that it was a valid order with which the Bachmans must
comply. Consequently, the district court could not hold the
Bachmans in contempt for not obeying it.
Having found no order for which the Bachmans could be
held in contempt for violating, we vacate the district court’s
contempt order. As the Bachmans acknowledged at oral argu-
ment, however, this outcome does not preclude the district
court, on remand, from issuing a new, stand-alone order requir-
ing the Bachmans to appear for a debtor’s examination.
CONCLUSION
The district court’s order requiring the Bachmans to appear
for a debtor’s examination was void. And the district court
could not legally hold the Bachmans in contempt for refus-
ing to comply with a void order. Accordingly, we vacate the
district court’s order finding the Bachmans in contempt, and
we remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
Vacated and remanded for
further proceedings.