Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

After an adjudicative hearing, the juvenile court found the three children of Mother and Father were within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) as to both parents due to physical abuse. The State subsequently filed a supplemental petition alleging that all three children were within the meaning of section 43-247(3)(a). Father filed a motion to dismiss the supplemental petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the allegations were barred by claim and issue preclusion. The juvenile court agreed and dismissed the State’s supplemental petition. The Supreme Court vacated the order of dismissal, holding (1) the juvenile court erred by not converting the motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment and allowing both parties an opportunity to produce evidence supporting their arguments; and (2) the doctrine of claim preclusion should not be strictly applied in abuse and neglect cases when doing so would fail to protect children from continuing abuse or neglect. Remanded for further proceedings on the supplemental petition. View "In re Interest of Noah B." on Justia Law

Appellee filed a complaint for dissolution of marriage against Appellant. During the pendency of the dissolution case, Appellant filed a separate complaint for declaratory judgment seeking an order regarding the parties’ rights under a prenuptial agreement. In the declaratory judgment action, the district court found the agreement to be valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court and remanded with directions to enter an order dismissing Appellant’s complaint for declamatory judgment, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it entertained Appellant’s declaratory judgment action when another action was pending involving the same parties and the same issues. View "Mansuetta v. Mansuetta" on Justia Law

Guardian Tax Partners Inc. purchased, at a treasurer’s tax sale, a one percent interest in certain Douglas County real estate owned by Skrupa Investment Company. Guardian subsequently recorded a treasurer’s tax deed to the real estate interest. Thereafter, Guardian filed a complaint for partition against Skrupa Investment and Frank and Mary Skrupa. In their answer, Skrupa Investment and Frank alleged that Guardian’s tax deed was invalid due to Guardian’s failure to give the required statutory notice to the record owner. Skrupa Investment also filed a counterclaim to quiet title, claiming 100 percent interest in the property. On July 24, 2015, the district court entered an order finding that the tax deed was valid and determining that Guardian owned a one percent interest and Skrupa Investment owned a ninety-nine percent interest in the real estate. Upon Skrupa Investment’s motion, the district court certified the July 24 order as final and appealable. Skrupa Investment then appealed from the July 24 order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Skrupa Investment’s appeal was out of time because the July 24, 2015 order was a final, appealable order not subject to certification under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1315. View "Guardian Tax Partners, Inc. v. Skrupa Investment Co." on Justia Law

Raven Addy-Cruz was killed in an automobile accident caused by Lyle Carman. Carman was employed by Lopez Trucking. Lopez Trucking had been hired by Werner Construction (Werner) to haul debris from a construction site. Addy-Cruz’s estate filed a wrongful death suit against Carman, the owner of Lopez Trucking (Lopez), and Werner. Summary judgment was entered in favor of Werner. The estate, Carman, and Lopez then entered a joint stipulation to dismiss without prejudice. Thereafter, the estate filed a notice of appeal from the order sustaining summary judgment in favor of Werner. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the estate’s voluntary dismissal of the cause of action without prejudice did not create a final order from which an appeal could be brought. View "Addy v. Lopez" on Justia Law

This action began in 1998, when the State filed a complaint on the relation of the State Department of Insurance, which was appointed as receiver of an insolvent insurance company. The case reached the Supreme Court at least three times - in 1999, 2005, and 2008. In 2015, the district court entered an order sanctioning William Gast, who represented some defendants, for filing a frivolous motion to recuse. On appeal, Gast challenged the district court’s jurisdiction to enter the order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to sanction Gast for filing a frivolous motion. View "State ex rel. Dep’t of Ins. v. Countrywide Truck Ins. Agency" on Justia Law

In two separate garnishment proceedings, Appellants, judgment creditors, served garnishment interrogatories on the judgment debtors’ attorney (Attorney). Appellants did not challenge Attorney’s answers in the first garnishment proceeding but filed an application to determine Attorney’s garnishment liability in response to Attorney’s answers in the second garnishment proceeding. The district court overruled Appellants’ motion to determine garnishment liability, concluding that because Appellants did not move to determine Attorney’s liability after he responded to the first garnishment interrogatories, he was released and discharged as to the property sought and that the property could not be sought again by Appellants in the second garnishment proceeding based on claim preclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it overruled Appellants’ motion to determine Attorney’s garnishment liability in the second garnishment proceeding. View "Huntington v. Pedersen" on Justia Law

Jesse, the legal father of Jaelyn under Ohio statutes, challenged the adoption of Jaelyn in Nebraska. In this appeal, Jesse specifically challenged the constitutionality of several Nebraska statutes, including statutes that permitted Jaelyn to be adopted without his consent. Jesse also argued that Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s paternity determination. Under Ohio law, Jesse had the right to withhold consent to the adoption of Jaelyn. After the county court issued an adoption decree, the district court declined to grant habeas relief, determining that Jesse lost standing to challenge the adoption after the county court found that Jesse was not Jaelyn’s biological father. The Supreme Court reversed without addressing Jesse’s constitutional challenges, holding that the district court erred in failing to determine that Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s determination of Jesse’s paternity. Remanded. View "Jesse B. v. Tylee H." on Justia Law

A 2004 dissolution decree awarded Kerry custody of the parties’ children, provided Michael with parenting time, and ordered Michael to pay child support. The parties settled a 2011 petition for an increase in support and counter-petition, but neither petition was dismissed. In 2013, the court granted Michael’s motion to compel compliance with the settlement. The Court of Appeals remanded with direction to prepare the applicable worksheets. Following remand, both appealed. In 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed in part. In 2013, while the first modification was ongoing, Michael sought changes of custody and child support. A summons issued, but a deputy was unable to serve Kerry. An appointed special process server later certified that personal service had been “effectuated,” but did not actually serve Kerry with a summons. Kerry objected to jurisdiction. The court found that Kerry received actual notice and had not been prejudiced by the manner of service. Kerry filed an answer. In 2014, the district court granted Michael’s application to modify the order. The Court of Appeals vacated, holding that Michael’s failure to serve the summons on Kerry within six months deprived the court of jurisdiction. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed. Kerry waived service of process by making a general appearance in the second proceeding and the court retained jurisdiction to modify custody while an appeal on other issues was pending. View "Burns v. Burns" on Justia Law

Nicole and Jeremy had three children, born in 2001, 2004, and 2005, and lived in Missouri. In 2007, Madysen, then 6 years old, reported that Jeremy had been sexually abusing her for more than a year. Jeremy was arrested. Nicole moved with the children to Nebraska and filed for divorce. The 2007 dissolution granted sole custody of the children to Nicole and stated that Jeremy “shall not have any parenting time.” The court ordered Jeremy to pay $50 per month in child support. IPursuant to a plea agreement, Jeremy was sentenced to 16 years’ confinement. Nicole married William in 2013; they sought adoption by a stepparent and to terminate Jeremy;s parental rights. Jeremy opposed the adoptions. The petitions asked the court to find that Jeremy had abandoned the children under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-104, such that Jeremy’s consent was not required. Jeremy’s mother had consistently paid the ordered child support; Jeremy had sent the children cards. The court ordered that Jeremy’s consent was not required. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the record did not support a finding upon clear and convincing evidence that Jeremy had abandoned his children. The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Court of Appeals had also lacked jurisdiction. The order was not final, pending an order on the adoption petition. View "In re Adoption of Madysen S." on Justia Law

Lindner sued the City of La Vista, challenging ordinance No. 979, creating an off-street parking district adjoining a Cabela’s store, as unconstitutional. The district court found that the action was time barred and dismissed. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, stating that is was not apparent from the face of Lindner’s complaint when Lindner’s cause of action accrued. On remand, the court accepted evidence and determined that the four-year catchall limitations period, Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-212, applied and that Lindner’s action accrued more than four years before he filed suit. The court identified the dates when the city opted to pay for the cost of off-street parking through general revenues and sales tax revenues, enacted ordinance No. 983 authorizing the issuance of bonds, issued the bonds, and first paid on. Each of these events occurred greater than four years before Lindner filed his complaint. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. The district court correctly identified the three undisputed dates when the city chose the funding mechanism to be used and implemented that decision. Even if using the latest event, October 16, 2006, as the date upon which - Lindner’s claim accrued, Lindner’s December 16, 2011, complaint was filed more than four years after the action accrued. View "Lindner v. Kindig" on Justia Law