Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involves two individuals who guaranteed loans for their business by executing promissory notes and trust deeds, which conveyed several real properties as security to a bank. After the business defaulted on the loans and entered bankruptcy, the bank sold both the business and the individuals’ properties through judicial foreclosure and trustee sales. The bank subsequently sought a deficiency judgment against the guarantors for the remaining debt, asserting that they owed over $3 million, while the guarantors argued that they should receive credit for the fair market value of the properties sold, in accordance with Nebraska’s antideficiency statute.The District Court for Johnson County granted summary judgment to the bank, finding the guarantors liable under their guarantees without credit for the property values. The court relied on a waiver provision in the guarantees, which stated that the guarantors waived any defense based on the bank not obtaining the fair market value of the collateral. The court also denied the guarantors’ motion for reconsideration or new trial, prompting the guarantors to appeal.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. It held that the antideficiency statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1013, applies not only to borrowers but also to guarantors when their obligation is secured by a trust deed and a trustee sale occurs. The court determined that the waiver provision in the guarantees was unenforceable as a matter of public policy, given the legislative mandate of § 76-1013. Furthermore, the court found that evidence such as assessed values and appraisals raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the fair market value of the properties at the time of the trustee sales. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "American Exch. Bank v. Topp" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant charged with several crimes, including first degree murder, for which the State sought the death penalty. The State’s charging documents included notice of three aggravating circumstances relevant to the potential imposition of the death penalty. After being served with the information, the defendant filed multiple pretrial motions, including motions to quash the information and amended informations on grounds related to alleged defects in the aggravating circumstances and constitutional challenges to Nebraska’s death penalty statutes. Each motion was accompanied by a request for a pretrial hearing. The procedural timeline included multiple amended informations, motions for a bill of particulars, motions for discovery, and a motion to suppress, with corresponding hearings and arraignment dates postponed at the defendant’s request or with his consent.The District Court for Washington County found several periods of delay excludable from the six-month speedy trial calculation under Nebraska’s speedy trial statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207. The court excluded time for the defendant’s motions and continuances, ultimately determining that the defendant’s motion for absolute discharge on speedy trial grounds was premature because the statutory period had not expired.The Nebraska Supreme Court independently reviewed the undisputed facts and the application of the speedy trial statute. It held that all three defense motions to quash—challenging the aggravating circumstances—were pretrial motions resulting in periods of delay excludable under § 29-1207(4)(a), and that its previous decision in State v. Covey did not apply to the facts here. Additionally, the Court found that delays stemming from the defendant’s requests to postpone arraignments for the purpose of filing and litigating these motions were continuances excludable under § 29-1207(4)(b). The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for discharge. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

A married couple with two children separated after the wife filed for dissolution of marriage. They agreed to share joint physical custody of their children on a rotating schedule and resolved property division, but disagreed on legal custody, the children’s involvement with the father’s church, and attendance at a church-affiliated summer camp during the father’s parenting time. The mother had been primarily responsible for the children’s health care and educational needs. She objected to the children’s continued involvement with the father’s church and church camp, citing concerns about religious teachings and values, though she had not objected to their attendance at non-church camps.The District Court for Buffalo County held a trial on these contested issues. It awarded sole legal custody to the mother, finding her to be primarily responsible for the children’s health and educational decisions. The court determined that, because of significant disagreements between the parents, sole legal custody was appropriate and in the children’s best interests. The court found no evidence that the father’s religious practices posed any threat to the children’s well-being and allowed him to involve the children in church activities during his parenting time. However, it concluded that the church camp was an extracurricular activity, granting the mother, as sole legal custodian, the authority to decide on the children’s attendance, including during the father’s parenting time.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo. It affirmed the award of sole legal custody to the mother, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it modified the lower court’s decree to remove the provision that allowed the mother to prevent the father from enrolling the children in the church camp during his parenting time, holding there was no evidence of harm from attending the camp. The judgment was affirmed as modified. View "Munsell v. Munsell" on Justia Law

A decedent passed away leaving a will that provided, among other things, a bequest to one son, Chris, of $50,000, equipment of his choosing, and “any business or interest in any business I own at my death.” The will’s residuary clause distributed the rest of the estate, including real and personal property, to another son, Kyle, and three others. The central disagreement arose over whether certain real estate, specifically a commercial property used by a construction business, was included in the bequest of “any business or interest in any business.” Chris argued that the property constituted a business asset or business interest, while Kyle, serving as personal representative, contended it was personal property not covered by the business bequest.The County Court for Douglas County admitted extrinsic evidence, including affidavits from both sons and the decedent’s accountant, but ultimately concluded that there was no ambiguity in the will’s language. The court ruled that it could not consider extrinsic evidence, found that Chris had already received all business assets to which he was entitled, and denied Chris’s request for other estate assets and supervised administration.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the county court’s order for error on the record and considered the interpretation of the will de novo. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that, although there was no patent ambiguity on the face of the will, the extrinsic evidence revealed a latent ambiguity regarding whether the decedent intended the commercial real estate to be included in the business bequest. Because the county court did not consider the possibility of a latent ambiguity and refused to assess the extrinsic evidence for that purpose, its decision was contrary to law. The Supreme Court reversed the county court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Estate of Schneider" on Justia Law

A property owner initiated a forcible entry and detainer action in county court against tenants who allegedly failed to pay rent on a commercial lease. The lease included options for the tenants to purchase the property during future terms, granted credits for rent paid toward the purchase price, and restricted the owner's ability to sell the property without giving the tenants an opportunity to exercise their purchase option. The owner sought possession, past due rent, and other costs. The tenants argued that the lease provisions created an equitable interest, thereby raising a title dispute that deprived the county court of jurisdiction.The county court rejected the tenants’ argument, finding that it had jurisdiction and ordering restitution of the premises to the owner. On appeal, the tenants failed to include the county court’s judgment in the transcript, which led the District Court for Douglas County to affirm the county court’s order without addressing the jurisdictional issue. The tenants then moved to alter or amend the judgment and supplement the record with the omitted judgment, but the district court denied this motion.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It determined that when a lease includes provisions that arguably create an equitable interest and restrict the owner’s rights, a title dispute is present. In such circumstances, a county court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide a forcible entry and detainer action. The Supreme Court also held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow supplementation of the record when it was necessary to determine jurisdiction. The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with directions to vacate the county court’s judgment and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Martens v. BB's Childcare" on Justia Law

A mother, Leah, relinquished her parental rights to her young son, Jordon, after Jordon had been removed from her home over concerns about her and the father’s ability to care for him. Leah had previously relinquished rights to two older children, who were adopted by her father and stepmother, and Jordon was ultimately placed with a relative of his father. In November 2022, Leah executed a written relinquishment of her rights, witnessed by her attorney and social workers. Afterwards, Jordon was adopted by the relative. Months later, Leah sought to rescind her relinquishment, alleging she did not act voluntarily due to her intellectual disability and claimed she was subjected to threats, coercion, and promises by her ex-husband, his family, and the adoptive parent.Her initial attempt to invalidate the relinquishment in the County Court for Dodge County was denied without an evidentiary hearing. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a hearing. On remand, the juvenile court received testimony from Leah, her ex-husband, his relatives, social workers, and her attorney. The court found Leah’s relinquishment was not the result of fraud, duress, threats, or coercion. The court gave weight to evidence that Leah initiated and insisted on relinquishment, understood its consequences, and was not unduly pressured by others. Leah’s intellectual disability was considered, but the court found she comprehended the act’s meaning and effect.On de novo review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's order, holding that Leah did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that her relinquishment was invalid. The Court clarified that a properly executed, voluntary relinquishment is irrevocable absent proof of threats, coercion, fraud, or duress, and that subsequent changes of heart or noncompliance with informal contact agreements do not invalidate such relinquishments. View "In re Interest of Jordon B." on Justia Law

A man was charged with burglary after allegedly breaking into the home of a woman with whom he had a prior romantic relationship. The State’s amended information accused him of willfully, maliciously, and forcibly entering her residence with the intent to commit stalking or, alternatively, with intent to steal property. The incident occurred after the man had engaged in a pattern of harassment, including posting the woman’s personal information online and breaking into her house multiple times.The District Court for Douglas County heard the case after the defendant filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that stalking could not be the underlying felony for burglary. He asserted that stalking is generally a misdemeanor that becomes a felony only via enhancement and that stalking’s required “course of conduct” cannot be established in a single burglary incident. The court treated his arguments as constitutional challenges to the burglary statute and found no merit in either an as-applied or facial challenge, overruling the motion to quash. The defendant then pled guilty as part of a plea agreement, and the court found a factual basis for the plea and sentenced him to imprisonment.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the information was sufficient to charge burglary, specifically if stalking could serve as the felony intent element. The court held that the information was sufficient, as stalking can constitute a felony under certain circumstances and the information adequately notified the defendant of the charges. The court rejected the argument that stalking could not qualify as the underlying felony and found no error in the district court’s decision to overrule the motion to quash or in convicting and sentencing the defendant. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "State v. Dicken" on Justia Law

A group of juveniles, including the defendant, participated in a series of criminal acts over several days in June 2021. The incidents began with the theft of a vehicle from Emmanuel Jacinto Franco outside a public pool, during which one juvenile brandished a handgun and forcibly took the vehicle. The defendant, present during the planning and execution of the theft, later joined the others in fleeing with the stolen car. Over the following days, the group committed additional crimes, including multiple shootings targeting individuals they believed were affiliated with a rival gang. One person was killed, others were injured, and the group later stole another vehicle. Law enforcement eventually apprehended the defendant and his associates, aided by tracking technology.The District Court for Douglas County conducted a joint jury trial for the defendant and a co-defendant. The defendant faced several felony charges, including first-degree murder, robbery, assault, and multiple counts involving the use of a firearm. The State presented extensive evidence, including witness testimony and forensic analysis. The defendant did not testify. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The court denied the defendant’s proposed jury instruction on “mere presence” and sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 320 years to life. Each sentence fell within the statutory limits. The defendant appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence for certain convictions, error in jury instructions, and that his sentences were excessive and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant’s convictions for robbery and use of a firearm under an aiding and abetting theory. The court found no error in the district court’s refusal to give the defendant’s proposed jury instruction, as the instructions provided were adequate and not misleading. The court also held that the sentences imposed were not excessive nor did they constitute cruel and unusual punishment, even though they amounted to a de facto life sentence. The judgment and sentences of the district court were affirmed. View "State v. Flores" on Justia Law

An employee of a railroad company suffered an ankle injury while descending stairs at her workplace. She claimed the injury occurred due to unsafe conditions maintained by her employer. The employee had a history of a preexisting foot condition and prior ankle surgery, but asserted she was asymptomatic before the workplace incident. After the incident, she underwent multiple surgeries and missed work, for which she received short-term disability payments from her employer’s plan.The District Court for Douglas County presided over a jury trial in July 2024. During trial, the court allowed evidence and argument regarding the employee’s preexisting condition, and permitted the jury to consider whether damages should be apportioned due to that condition. The court also excluded the employee’s expert's specific opinion about the number of work years lost, finding insufficient methodological foundation. Both parties moved for directed verdicts, which were denied. The jury found the railroad 5% at fault and the employee 95% at fault, awarding $287,600 in damages. The employee’s motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting erroneous jury instructions and exclusion of expert testimony, were denied. The railroad’s post-trial motion to reduce the verdict by the employee’s fault percentage and to set off disability payments was also denied.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the jury instructions correctly stated the law under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), and there was sufficient evidence to submit questions of comparative fault and apportionment to the jury. The court found no error in the exclusion of the expert’s specific lost worklife expectancy opinion, due to lack of reliable methodology. The court also concluded that the employer’s disability plan language did not entitle the railroad to a setoff from the jury award. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Cramer v. Union Pacific RR. Co." on Justia Law

The case involved a medical negligence and wrongful death claim arising from care provided to a resident at a county-owned skilled nursing facility in Nebraska. The plaintiffs, the decedent’s personal representative and surviving spouse, alleged that substandard care by the facility’s staff caused fatal injuries. The suit was initiated against several entities purportedly associated with the facility, but only two remained as defendants after some were dismissed for procedural reasons.After the complaint was filed in the District Court for Merrick County, the primary remaining defendant, identified as Litzenberg Memorial Long Term Care, moved to dismiss the case. The defendant argued that the complaint failed to demonstrate compliance with the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act’s presuit notice requirement, claiming that notice was not properly served on the appropriate official. Before the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to clarify factual allegations regarding compliance with presuit notice and to correct the defendant’s name. The proposed amendment included details suggesting that the Merrick County clerk was an appropriate recipient for notice, and asserted that the defendant should be estopped from contesting notice due to representations made by the clerk.The district court denied the motion for leave to amend and granted the motion to dismiss, finding the amendment would be futile because the notice had not been properly served. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that under the applicable procedural rule, the plaintiffs were entitled to amend their complaint once as a matter of course prior to any responsive pleading. The court held that filing a motion for leave to amend did not waive this right. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing that the plaintiffs be allowed to amend their complaint. View "Cyboron v. Merrick County" on Justia Law