Shannon <strong>v</strong>. Shannon

[[COURTLISTENER_SUBOPINION {"id":"11477105","type":"010combined","part":"opinion","author":null,"source_field":"html_with_citations"}]]
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/02/2026 08:09 AM CDT




                                                         - 451 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        322 Nebraska Reports
                                               SHANNON v. SHANNON
                                                 Cite as
322 Neb. 451
Shalah N. Shannon, appellee, v.
                                          Jarrod Shannon, appellant.
                                                     ___ N.W.3d ___

                                          Filed October 2, 2026.   No. S-25-546.

                1. Appeal and Error. Plain error is error plainly evident from the record
                   and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage
                   to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.
                2. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorney and Client. Regardless of the
                   source, submitting a brief riddled with fabricated citations is a betrayal
                   of an attorney’s duty of candor and a violation of the Nebraska Rules of
                   Professional Conduct.
                3. Effectiveness of Counsel. Self‑represented litigants are held to the same
                   standard as practicing attorneys.
                4. Courts. The integrity of the judiciary and trust in the judicial process
                   is dependent upon the development of consistent and predictable legal
                   principles.
                5. Contempt. Civil contempt proceedings are instituted to compel obedi-
                   ence with court orders made for the benefit of the opposing party.
                6. ____. For a contempt order to be civil rather than criminal in nature, the
                   contemnor must have the ability to comply with the contempt order at
                   the time it is imposed to avert punishment.
                7. Appeal and Error. When a party raises an issue for the first time on
                   appeal, an appellate court will disregard it because a lower court cannot
                   commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it
                   for disposition.
                8. Contempt: Costs: Attorney Fees. Costs, including reasonable attorney
                   fees, can be awarded in a contempt proceeding when there has been a
                   finding of contempt.
                9. Contempt: Attorney Fees. Attorney fees in contempt cases fall under a
                   court’s inherent power to do all things necessary to enforce its judgment.
               10. Affidavits: Time: Appeal and Error. Courts should make the appellate
                   in forma pauperis determination by examining the applicant’s present
                                - 452 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   322 Nebraska Reports
                       SHANNON v. SHANNON
                         Cite as
322 Neb. 451
ability to pay and should not base its determination on whether the
    applicant will have necessary funds in the future or may accumulate
    funds at a later date.

  Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: George
A. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.

  Jarrod Shannon, pro se.

  Tara Wrighton and McKenna F. Carnell, of Hightower Reff
Law, L.L.C., for appellee.

  Funke, C.J., Cassel, Stacy,               Papik,    Freudenberg,
Bergevin, and Vaughn, JJ.

  Vaughn, J.
                         INTRODUCTION
   Jarrod Shannon and Shalah N. Shannon have been litigat-
ing their divorce for over 4 years. In 2023, the Sarpy County
District Court entered a divorce decree and parenting plan.
After entry of the decree, Shalah filed five applications to show
cause, asking the district court to compel Jarrod to appear and
explain why he was not complying with certain provisions of
the divorce decree and parenting plan. Following an eviden-
tiary hearing on all five applications, the district court held that
Jarrod willfully and contumaciously violated the divorce decree
and sanctioned him to serve a term of 90 days’ incarceration.
Jarrod appealed. On appeal, Jarod filed a brief that contained
citations to fictitious cases and inaccurate propositions of law.
We struck the brief and, for this reason, review only for plain
error. Finding no plain error, we affirm.

                      BACKGROUND
          Divorce Decree and Parenting Plan
  The decree awarded Shalah sole physical custody of the
minor children and awarded the parties joint legal custody.
The decree also ordered that Jarrod and Shalah were to share
                              - 453 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  322 Nebraska Reports
                      SHANNON v. SHANNON
                        Cite as
322 Neb. 451
the costs of the children’s nonreimbursed medical expenses,
ordered that Jarrod pay Shalah an equalization payment in
the amount of $21,502.59 within 6 months of the date of the
decree, and awarded Shalah attorney fees.

           Show Cause and Contempt Proceeding
   At the evidentiary hearing on her applications to show cause,
Shalah testified that Jarrod had not yet paid the court‑ordered
equalization payment or her attorney fees and that he had
not reimbursed her for his share of the children’s medical
expenses. She also detailed his numerous alleged violations of
the parenting plan, including not following their agreed‑upon
transportation arrangements, preventing her from communi-
cating with the children while they were in his custody, not
properly administering their medications, traveling with the
children out of state without prior notice, and keeping them
over his allotted parenting time.
   Jarrod testified that he had not paid Shalah the court‑ordered
amounts in the divorce decree because he could not afford
to do so. To support his claims, he testified that, in addition to
his expenses of daily living, he was also paying the legal fees
he incurred for his direct appeal of the divorce decree. When
questioned about why he had taken on the added expense of
purchasing a new Tesla vehicle despite his financial struggles,
Jarrod stated it was necessary because he needed a vehicle with
self‑driving capabilities due to a medical condition that caused
him to lose consciousness while driving.
   Regarding his alleged violations of the parenting plan,
Jarrod stated that he had not reimbursed Shalah for his share
of any unpaid medical expenses because he did not know she
was making certain payments and that his reason for keeping
the children over his allotted parenting time was due to his
misunderstanding of the dates he was to have custody of the
children. He also disputed Shalah’s assertion that he deliber-
ately prevented the children from speaking with her, claiming
that he encouraged them to communicate with her.
                              - 454 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  322 Nebraska Reports
                      SHANNON v. SHANNON
                        Cite as
322 Neb. 451
District Court Order
   After taking the matter under advisement, the district court
concluded that Jarrod had willfully violated the divorce decree
and held him in contempt of court. It found that Jarrod was
not a credible witness and that despite his claimed financial
struggles, he had no intention of paying Shalah. It further
found Jarrod’s claims that his purchase of a new Tesla was
justified due to his claimed medical condition to be disin-
genuous. It stated that he had elected to purchase the vehicle
and that although he had the option to sell it and use the
proceeds to satisfy his financial obligations, he chose not to
do so. The district court did not find Jarrod’s testimony cred-
ible that he misunderstood the parenting plan’s requirements
regarding parenting time, stating that “the language of the
plan is plain and straightforward” and that Jarrod seemed to
be “gameplaying.”
   As a sanction for his repeated and ongoing violations of the
divorce decree, the district court ordered that Jarrod serve a
term of 90 days’ incarceration. However, it ordered that Jarrod
could avoid incarceration and “purge” himself of the sanction.
It also temporarily reduced Jarrod’s 2025 summer parenting
time to a period of 5 weeks and once again ordered that he pay
Shalah’s attorney fees.
                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   Jarrod assigns, reordered and restated, that the district court
abused its discretion by (1) finding him in willful contempt for
his violations of the district court’s divorce decree and parent-
ing plan, (2) imposing an “impossible” purge condition and an
“improper” punitive sanction, (3) failing to act as a fair and
impartial arbiter, (4) awarding attorney fees to Shalah, and (5)
denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis.
                   STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1] Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and
of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in
damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial
                              - 455 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  322 Nebraska Reports
                      SHANNON v. SHANNON
                        Cite as
322 Neb. 451
process. State ex rel. Hilgers v. Evnen,
318 Neb. 803
,
19
N.W.3d 244
(2025).
                           ANALYSIS
   The central basis for Jarrod’s appeal is the district court’s
finding that he was in contempt of court. However, Jarrod has
failed to provide any cognizable reason why the district court
was in error. In addition, his brief contains numerous citations
to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which are the
result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence
(AI). In light of these deficiencies, we strike Jarrod’s brief
and have elected to review for plain error. Finding none, the
ruling of the district court is affirmed.
              Use of AI and Fictitious Citations
   [2] In our recent case, Prososki v. Regan,
321 Neb. 38
,
32 N.W.3d 593
(2026), we addressed the then‑novel issue of
what consequences await an attorney who submits an appel-
late brief containing citations to inaccurate legal authority and
fictitious case law. We held that, regardless of the source, sub-
mitting a brief riddled with fabricated citations is a betrayal of
an attorney’s duty of candor and a violation of the Nebraska
Rules of Professional Conduct. See
Prososki, supra.
As a
form of sanction, we exercised our inherent judicial authority
to strike the brief from the record, dismissed the appeal, and
referred the offending attorney to the Counsel for Discipline
of the Nebraska Supreme Court. See
id.
[3] The difference here is that Jarrod is not represented
by, nor is he, a licensed attorney. Although we have never
addressed the issue in this specific context, there is little
question it is the law of this State that self‑represented liti-
gants are held to the same standard as practicing attorneys.
See, e.g., Friedman v. Friedman,
290 Neb. 973
,
863 N.W.2d
153
(2015). The fact that the Nebraska Rules of Professional
Conduct do not apply to Jarrod is not dispositive. He is not
exempted from his duty to conduct himself with the same
level of candor and professionalism we expect from members
                             - 456 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  322 Nebraska Reports
                     SHANNON v. SHANNON
                       Cite as
322 Neb. 451
of the bar. As such, we take this opportunity to state in no
uncertain terms: regardless of whether a party is represented
or self‑represented, submission of a brief that contains mis-
statements of law or relies upon nonexistent legal authority is
an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions.
   Having concluded Jarrod has engaged in sanctionable con-
duct, we must next determine what sanction is appropriate.
Given the troubling increase of the inappropriate use of AI by
attorneys and pro se parties alike, other courts presented with
this issue have taken varied approaches. These range in sever-
ity from a public reprimand to dismissal of the party’s appeal.
See, e.g., Burnside v. Verdick,
832 F. Supp. 3d 882
(S.D. Iowa
2026) (ordering pro se party to submit paper copies of each
case cited to in complaint and file amended complaint that
contains proper citations due to suspected use of AI); Mata v.
Avianca, Inc.,
678 F. Supp. 3d 443
(S.D.N.Y. 2023) (imposing
monetary sanctions in amount of $5,000 for use of false case
citations); Chastain v. City of Kansas City,
728 S.W.3d 513
(Mo. App. 2025) (dismissing pro se party’s appeal for citing
to AI‑generated case summaries); Kruse v. Karlen,
692 S.W.3d
43
(Mo. App. 2024) (dismissing pro se party’s appeal and
awarding partial attorney fees where party cited to fictitious
case law). This sometimes includes imposing a lesser sanction
on a self‑represented party. See Sheerer v. Panas,
119 Cal.
App. 5th 367
,
342 Cal. Rptr. 3d 629
(2026) (electing not to
impose sanctions on pro se party because court had not previ-
ously ruled on issue).
   When considering the appropriate sanction in this instance,
we acknowledge that our ruling in
Prososki, supra,
and elec-
tion to strike the appellant’s brief was rooted in the attorney’s
failure to comply with the Nebraska Rules of Professional
Conduct, and we did not address the specific standards and
resulting consequences for self‑represented parties who com-
mit the same or similar infractions. Bearing this in mind and
considering the novelty and rapid development of this area
of the law, we will stop short of dismissing Jarrod’s appeal.
                              - 457 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   322 Nebraska Reports
                      SHANNON v. SHANNON
                        Cite as
322 Neb. 451
However, in future cases, dismissal of the appeal in lieu of
plain error review may follow.
   [4] This in no way detracts or deviates from our longstand-
ing precedent that pro se litigants will be held to the same
standards as those who are represented by counsel. Nor does
this mean that self‑represented parties will receive lenience in
the event they make false representations to this court, regard-
less of whether they are the result of AI. The integrity of the
judiciary and trust in the judicial process is dependent upon
the development of consistent and predictable legal principles.
See, State v. Jones,
320 Neb. 766
,
30 N.W.3d 293
(2026);
Cano v. Walker,
297 Neb. 580
,
901 N.W.2d 251
(2017). It is
the responsibility of all parties not to undermine the integrity
of the courts and erode public trust in their opinions by asking
them to render decisions premised upon falsehoods.
   Jarrod’s brief is riddled with fabricated citations and quota-
tions, and we decide that the striking of his brief is appropriate.
However, we exercise our discretion to review his assignments
for plain error.
         Improper Sanction and Purge Conditions
   [5,6] Civil contempt proceedings are instituted to compel
obedience with court orders made for the benefit of the oppos-
ing party. See, Johnson v. Johnson,
308 Neb. 623
,
956 N.W.2d
261
(2021); Sickler v. Sickler,
293 Neb. 521
,
878 N.W.2d 549
(2016). For a contempt order to be civil rather than criminal in
nature, the contemnor must have the ability to comply with the
contempt order at the time it is imposed to avert punishment.
See
Sickler, supra.
Jarrod contends that the district court erred when it held
him in contempt and that its sanction of incarceration was
overly punitive because he was unable to comply with the
purge conditions. We disagree. The district court’s contempt
order was a proportionate and appropriate response to Jarrod’s
continued disregard for the provisions of the 2023 divorce
decree. Three years have passed since the decree was filed,
                              - 458 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   322 Nebraska Reports
                      SHANNON v. SHANNON
                        Cite as
322 Neb. 451
and Jarrod has yet to pay Shalah the equalization payment
and her attorney fees, nor has he reimbursed her for his share
of their children’s medical expenses.
   In addition, within the record are hundreds of pages of
receipts, medical records, and screenshots of communications
between Jarrod and Shalah that she provided to corroborate
her testimony regarding Jarrod’s violations of the parenting
plan, which the district court found to be credible. Conversely,
the record contains evidence that supports the district court’s
finding that Jarrod’s claims were not credible. This includes
its order denying Jarrod’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, in which the district court stated that Jarrod made
representations in his affidavit in support of his application
that were contrary to his testimony at the evidentiary hearing
and that he had failed to declare certain assets.
   We find no plain error.
            Court as Fair and Impartial Arbiter
   [7] Jarrod next asserts that the district court failed to act as
a “fair and impartial arbiter” because it disregarded certain evi-
dence. There is nothing in the record that indicates Jarrod ever
filed a motion for recusal or that he requested that the judge
recuse himself. “When a party raises an issue for the first time
on appeal, we will disregard it because a lower court cannot
commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submit-
ted to it for disposition.” First Express Servs. Group v. Easter,
286 Neb. 912
, 923,
840 N.W.2d 465
, 473 (2013).
   Given that there is no evidence that Jarrod ever filed a
motion for recusal in the district court, we find no plain error.
                  Award of Attorney Fees
   [8,9] Jarrod assigns that the district court erred when it
awarded Shalah $16,114.74 in attorney fees. Costs, including
reasonable attorney fees, can be awarded in a contempt pro-
ceeding when there has been a finding of contempt. Yochum v.
Yochum,
312 Neb. 535
,
980 N.W.2d 17
(2022). Attorney fees
in contempt cases fall under a court’s inherent power to do all
                               - 459 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   322 Nebraska Reports
                      SHANNON v. SHANNON
                        Cite as
322 Neb. 451
things necessary to enforce its judgment. Becher v. Becher,
311
Neb. 1
,
970 N.W.2d 472
(2022).
   Jarrod does not dispute that Shalah presented valid evi-
dence substantiating her claimed attorney fees and costs. Nor
does he dispute that the district court’s finding that Shalah was
entitled to an award of attorney fees was unfair, unjust, or oth-
erwise contrary to Nebraska law. Instead, he asserts that the
district court abused its discretion in awarding Shalah attorney
fees because it found that he was in violation of the district
court’s order and held him in contempt. Because we find that
the district court did not err when it held Jarrod in contempt
of court, we find no plain error in its corresponding award of
attorney fees.
             Denial of Application to Proceed
                       In Forma Pauperis
   [10] Finally, we consider the denial of Jarrod’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis. As a general proposition, courts
should make the appellate in forma pauperis determination by
examining the applicant’s present ability to pay and should not
base its determination on whether the applicant will have nec-
essary funds in the future or may accumulate funds at a later
date. Sabino v. Ozuna,
303 Neb. 318
,
928 N.W.2d 778
(2019).
   Following a hearing, the district court concluded that Jarrod
had sufficient funds to prosecute his appeal. It also found that
Jarrod failed to declare certain assets in his affidavit he filed in
support of his application and that the testimony he provided
at the hearing contradicted what was in his affidavit, as well as
his testimony from the prior evidentiary hearing.
   We find no plain error and affirm the district court’s order.
                       CONCLUSION
  For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order of con-
tempt is affirmed.
                                                   Affirmed.
  Stacy, J., concurs in the result.