Void Pre-Judgment Debtor’s Examination Orders and Limits on Civil Contempt in Nebraska

Introduction

In Leaf Supreme Prods. v. Bachman, 318 Neb. 751 (Apr. 4, 2025), the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed two interrelated questions of post-judgment collection practice and contempt procedure. Leaf Supreme Products, LLC ("Leaf Supreme") obtained a jury verdict of roughly $200,000 on a conversion claim against James and Adella Bachman, but before a final judgment was entered, Leaf Supreme sought and obtained a district court order compelling the Bachmans to sit for a debtor’s examination. The Bachmans refused, and the court held them in civil contempt. On appeal, the key issues were (1) whether an order for a debtor’s examination issued before the entry of final judgment is void under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1565 (Reissue 2016) and related authorities, and (2) whether a party can lawfully be held in contempt for refusing to obey such a void order or any orders derived from it. The Supreme Court resolved both questions in favor of the Bachmans, vacating the contempt finding and remanding for further proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Nebraska Supreme Court unanimously held:

Under § 25-1565, a court may order a debtor’s examination only after the entry of a final judgment; any examination order issued beforehand is void.
A refusal to obey a void order cannot support a civil contempt finding.
Subsequent orders based on a void examination order likewise are void, and a court cannot hold a party in contempt for non-compliance absent a valid, clearly worded directive.
The district court’s finding of contempt was vacated, and the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the requirement that any debtor’s examination order be issued only after judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 311 Neb. 495, 973 N.W.2d 171 (2022) — Established the three-part standard of review in civil contempt proceedings: (1) de novo review of legal issues; (2) clear-error review of factual findings; (3) abuse-of-discretion review of the contempt determination and sanction.
Florence Lake Investments v. Berg, 312 Neb. 183, 978 N.W.2d 308 (2022) — Defined “judgment” as the final determination of the parties’ rights.
Cattle Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Watson, 293 Neb. 943, 880 N.W.2d 906 (2016) — Held that writs of execution and garnishments issued before judgment are void and that a later judgment does not retroactively validate them.
Davis v. Moats, 308 Neb. 757, 956 N.W.2d 682 (2021) — Confirmed that refusal to obey a void order is not contempt.
Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier, 279 Neb. 661, 782 N.W.2d 848 (2010) — Held that contempt requires an order that clearly specifies the proscribed conduct.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began by examining § 25-1565, which provides that “a judgment creditor is entitled to an order . . . requiring the debtor to appear and answer concerning his or her property” “at any time after the entry of judgment against the judgment debtor.” The statute’s plain language conditions the court’s power to compel a debtor’s examination on the prior existence of a final judgment. Citing Berg and the statutory definition of “judgment” as the final determination of rights, the Court concluded that a debtor’s examination ordered before judgment is void. By analogy to Watson, the Court reasoned that collection devices—garnishments, writs, or examinations—must be tethered to an existing judgment; otherwise they exceed the court’s authority.

Because the district court’s February 3, 2023 order was void ab initio, the Court held that the Bachmans’ non-compliance could not support a contempt finding. The May 4 and September 7, 2023 orders, which purported to hold the Bachmans in contempt and to require purge steps, were rooted in the original void order. Under Davis, contempt of a void order is impossible, and under Smeal Fire, a valid contempt order must clearly warn the contemnor of the required conduct. The September 7 order failed on both counts: it lacked clear temporal directions and did not stand alone as a fresh, valid order in aid of execution. Therefore, none of the court’s actions could lawfully generate contempt.

Impact

Leaf Supreme v. Bachman establishes critical boundaries for Nebraska courts and litigants in post-judgment enforcement:

Trial courts cannot circumvent the statutory “after judgment” requirement when ordering debtor’s examinations; any pre-judgment order is a legal nullity.
Enforcement through contempt must be predicated on valid, clearly articulated orders. Courts should expressly label and date each order in aid of execution, ensuring that the contemnor understands precisely what is required and by when.
Parties seeking post-judgment discovery or asset-locating tools must first secure a final judgment, then reapply or reissue their collection motions or orders.
Future appeals will likely rely on Leaf Supreme v. Bachman to challenge void pre-judgment collection orders and any contempt sanctions flowing therefrom.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Debtor’s Examination: A post-judgment procedure allowing a creditor to question a debtor under oath about assets. It is a tool to gather information for executing on a judgment, not an independent lawsuit.
Void vs. Voidable Order: A void order is a legal nullity with no effect, whereas a voidable order is valid until properly set aside. Void orders cannot be waived or cured by subsequent approval.
Civil Contempt: A remedy to compel compliance with a court order or to compensate a party for losses caused by non-compliance. It must be based on breach of a valid, specific directive.
Garnishment and Writ of Execution: Other post-judgment collection processes requiring an existing judgment. Pre-judgment issuance of these writs is likewise void.

Conclusion

Leaf Supreme Prods. v. Bachman clarifies and reinforces fundamental procedural safeguards in Nebraska’s post-judgment collection landscape. By holding pre-judgment debtor’s examination orders void and disallowing contempt for non-compliance with such orders, the Court protects debtors from premature and unauthorized discovery while preserving creditors’ rights once a judgment is final. The decision underlines the necessity of strict adherence to statutory prerequisites and careful drafting of enforcement orders. On remand, the district court may issue a valid post-judgment examination order—but only after a final judgment is entered and with crystal-clear directives to avoid future procedural pitfalls.