Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brian Herman and Skyler Herman sued Peter Tonn Enterprises, LLC, doing business as I39 Supply, for breach of contract. The Hermans alleged that they agreed to buy a livestock trailer from I39 Supply, but I39 Supply failed to honor the agreement. The Hermans served I39 Supply via certified mail, but I39 Supply did not respond, leading the Hermans to file for a default judgment. The district court granted the default judgment, ruling that I39 Supply was properly served and had failed to answer the complaint.I39 Supply, represented by its owner Peter Tonn, who is not an attorney, sent documents to the district court and participated in the default judgment hearing by telephone. The district court ruled that Tonn could not represent the LLC and entered a $19,000 judgment in favor of the Hermans. I39 Supply later retained counsel and filed a motion to vacate the default judgment, arguing that Tonn was unaware he could not represent the LLC. The motion did not mention personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion to vacate the default judgment and set the matter for a pretrial conference.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that I39 Supply made a general appearance by filing the motion to vacate the default judgment without raising the issue of personal jurisdiction. This action conferred personal jurisdiction on the district court. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order dismissing the Hermans' complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Herman v. Peter Tonn Enters." on Justia Law

The husband filed for dissolution after 18 years of marriage, disputing whether two adjacent lots were marital property. One lot included the marital home, and the other had a barn for the wife's horse training business. The husband purchased both lots before the marriage, but both were encumbered by loans paid off with a mix of marital and premarital funds. The properties appreciated significantly during the marriage due to market forces. The key issue was whether paying down the loans with marital funds created a marital interest in the properties.The District Court for Washington County concluded that the lots were nonmarital property, except for the marital contributions toward the loan principals. The court awarded the husband the properties and the wife a cash equalization payment for half of the marital contributions. The wife appealed, arguing that the properties should be considered marital due to the use of marital funds to pay down the loans.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision regarding the land portions of the lots, finding them nonmarital. However, it reversed the decision regarding the barn and other improvements on one lot, classifying them as marital property due to the joint efforts in their construction and operation. The court modified the equalization payment to the wife accordingly.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and adopted the "source of funds" rule, which considers the marital estate's acquisition of equity in the properties through loan paydowns with marital funds. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the land portions of the lots and remanded the case for a new hearing to determine the equitable division of these properties, considering the source of funds rule. The decision regarding the barn and other improvements was affirmed. View "Stava v. Stava" on Justia Law

PSK, LLC purchased a commercial property at a trustee's sale, which included a billboard. A dispute arose over the ownership of the billboard, leading PSK to file a quiet title action against Legacy Outdoor Advertising, LLC, claiming ownership of the billboard. Legacy counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that the billboard was its removable personal property.The district court found in favor of Legacy, determining that the billboard was not a fixture but removable personal property. The court noted that the Arents, the previous owners, had sold the billboard to USA Outdoor in 2010 and had entered into a lease agreement allowing USA Outdoor to remove the billboard upon lease termination. The court found that PSK had notice of the separate ownership of the billboard before purchasing the property, as evidenced by a sign on the billboard and testimony from the previous owners and a realtor.PSK appealed, arguing that the billboard was included in its purchase of the real estate and that it had no notice of Legacy's claim. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that PSK failed to prove its ownership of the billboard and that the billboard was indeed Legacy's removable personal property. The court emphasized the importance of the Arents' intention to sell the billboard as personal property and the lease agreement's provision allowing for its removal. The court also found that PSK had constructive notice of the separate ownership due to the sign on the billboard and other circumstances that should have prompted further inquiry. View "PSK v. Legacy Outdoor Advertising" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Roberto E., sought to modify his child support obligations following changes in the custody of his children. Roberto and Lizeth E. were married in 2011 and had one child together, with Roberto adopting Lizeth’s four other children. Their marriage was dissolved in 2017, with Lizeth receiving custody of all five children and Roberto ordered to pay child support. Subsequently, the children were placed in various out-of-home placements due to juvenile court proceedings, with one child, Roberto Jr., eventually placed in Roberto’s custody through a bridge order.The Lincoln County District Court initially modified Roberto’s child support obligations to reflect the custody change of Roberto Jr. but did not account for the other children’s placements in foster care. Roberto filed a complaint to further modify his child support obligations, arguing that the juvenile court’s orders constituted a material change in circumstances and that his child support should be adjusted retroactively.The district court found that it lacked jurisdiction to modify custody for the children still under juvenile court jurisdiction and declined to modify child support retroactively, citing the rule against modifying accrued child support unless equitable estoppel applied. The court also upheld the garnishment of Roberto’s bank account for back child support.Upon review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision regarding custody but vacated and remanded the decision on child support. The Supreme Court found that the district court should have considered a deviation from the child support guidelines due to the children’s placements in foster care, which would be equitable under the circumstances. The court also vacated the garnishment findings, as they were dependent on the proper determination of Roberto’s child support obligations. View "Lizeth E. v. Roberto E." on Justia Law

Brent McCormick died intestate, and his sister-in-law, Tracy McCormick, filed a petition for formal probate, listing Brent’s father, mother, and brother as the only known heirs. Beth Roberts, Brent’s biological daughter, filed a demand for notice and objected to Tracy’s petition, asserting her status as Brent’s sole heir. The county court for Washington County held a hearing and appointed Tracy as temporary personal representative, later determining that Beth was entitled to inherit from Brent despite the termination of Brent’s parental rights.The county court noted that Brent’s paternity was established by adjudication in 1991, and his parental rights were terminated in 1992. Beth was not adopted after the termination. The court analyzed relevant statutes, including Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2309, which establishes the relationship of parent and child for intestate succession, and § 30-2312.02, which bars a parent from inheriting from a child if parental rights are terminated but does not address the child’s right to inherit from the parent. The court also considered Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-106.01, which states that relinquishment of parental rights does not impair a child’s right to inherit.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the county court’s decision. The court held that under the Nebraska Probate Code, Beth was Brent’s issue and entitled to inherit from him. The court found no statutory provision indicating that the termination of Brent’s parental rights extinguished Beth’s right to inherit. The court concluded that the probate statutes and other relevant statutes did not bar Beth from inheriting from Brent, affirming the county court’s order. View "In re Estate of McCormick" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with four counts of first-degree sexual assault, alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2004, and June 1, 2008. He filed a motion to quash and dismiss the charges, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. The district court denied the motion, stating that the statute of limitations likely had not run but required a preliminary hearing to determine the ages of the victims. Before the preliminary hearing, the State amended the charges to include offenses from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2008. The appellant eventually pled no contest to one count of first-degree sexual assault under a plea agreement.The district court accepted the plea after confirming that the appellant understood the charges, the penalties, and his rights. The court also confirmed that the appellant was competent to plead, despite his PTSD and not taking medication on the day of the plea hearing. The appellant was sentenced to 40 to 50 years in prison, with credit for time served. His trial counsel did not appeal, leading the appellant to file a pro se motion for postconviction relief, which was granted, allowing him to file a direct appeal.On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for various reasons, including failing to file a motion to quash the amended information, not disclosing a health condition that impaired counsel’s ability, and not properly advising him of the consequences of his plea. The court found that the record did not support claims of ineffective assistance regarding the motion to quash, as the statute of limitations had not expired, and there was no ex post facto violation. The court also found that the appellant was adequately informed of the consequences of his plea and that his counsel was not deficient in this regard.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s acceptance of the plea and the sentence, finding no abuse of discretion or merit in the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Haas" on Justia Law

James R. Kalita was convicted in county court of second-degree criminal trespass and refusal to obey a lawful order after he brought a flagpole into the Nebraska State Capitol Building, which was against the building's regulations. Despite being informed by Capitol security and Nebraska State Patrol officers that poles were not permitted, Kalita refused to remove the flagpole or leave the premises, leading to his arrest.Kalita appealed to the District Court for Lancaster County, arguing that the statutes and regulations under which he was convicted were unconstitutional as applied to him and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The district court affirmed the county court's judgment, finding the evidence sufficient and rejecting the constitutional challenge.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Kalita forfeited his constitutional challenge by failing to raise it in the county court. The court emphasized that constitutional issues must be specifically raised at the trial court level to be considered on appeal. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support Kalita's convictions, as he had clearly refused to obey a lawful order from the Nebraska State Patrol and remained in the Capitol building despite being informed that he was trespassing.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Kalita's convictions for second-degree criminal trespass and refusal to obey a lawful order. View "State v. Kalita" on Justia Law

The case involves Meisam Sedighi, who sought reimbursement from his employer, Schnackel Engineers, Inc., for $3,000 he paid to an immigration attorney for the preparation and filing of a permanent labor certification application. Sedighi argued that under 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b), Schnackel Engineers was responsible for these costs. Schnackel Engineers contended that Sedighi was to pursue his green card at his own expense, as stipulated in his employment contract, and that it did not agree to pay for the certification application.The small claims court of the county court for Douglas County ruled in favor of Sedighi, finding that Schnackel Engineers was responsible for the attorney fees under 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b). Schnackel Engineers appealed to the district court for Douglas County, which reversed the small claims court's decision. The district court found that the employment contract controlled the parties' obligations and that Sedighi was responsible for his own green card expenses. It concluded that the Michigan immigration attorney represented Sedighi, not Schnackel Engineers.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its appellate review. The Supreme Court noted that the small claims court's judgment was supported by competent evidence showing that Schnackel Engineers actively participated in the preparation and filing of the permanent labor certification application. The Supreme Court held that the district court should have presumed that the small claims court found the Michigan immigration attorney represented both Sedighi and Schnackel Engineers. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and directed it to reinstate the small claims court's judgment in favor of Sedighi. View "Sedighi v. Schnackel Engineers" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2024, the Nebraska Secretary of State announced he would not implement recent statutory amendments allowing individuals convicted of felonies to vote upon completing their sentences, deeming the amendments unconstitutional. In response, individuals who had completed their sentences filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary and county election commissioners to implement the amendments and allow them to register to vote.The case was brought directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The relators argued that the amendments provided a clear right to vote and imposed a clear duty on the respondents to allow voter registration. The Secretary, supported by an Attorney General's opinion, argued that the amendments were unconstitutional, asserting that the power to restore voting rights lies with the Board of Pardons, not the Legislature.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, noting that fewer than five judges found the amendments unconstitutional, as required by the Nebraska Constitution to invalidate a legislative act. Consequently, the court determined that the relators had established the prerequisites for mandamus relief. The court issued a peremptory writ directing the Secretary and election commissioners to use voter registration forms required by the amendments and to register the individual relators upon receipt of complete applications. The court also ordered the Secretary to remove any disqualification on registration not contained within the amendments and to comply fully with the new statutory provisions. View "State ex rel. Spung v. Evnen" on Justia Law

The case involves Riley Lenhart, who was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in the death of his 10-month-old daughter, M.L. On June 19, 2022, M.L. died from ligature strangulation while in Lenhart's care. Lenhart claimed he left M.L. briefly to shower, and upon returning, found her not breathing. Emergency personnel were unable to revive her. Lenhart was arrested and charged with intentional child abuse resulting in death.The District Court for Dawes County handled the trial. Before the trial, Lenhart successfully moved to exclude certain character evidence, including his status as a sex offender and the fact that a sexual assault examination was conducted on M.L. During the trial, a forensic pathologist mentioned the sexual assault examination, prompting Lenhart to object and move for a mistrial. The court struck the statement and instructed the jury to disregard it but denied the mistrial motion. Instead, the court ordered the State to stipulate that such examinations are routine and that no evidence of sexual assault was found. Lenhart objected to this stipulation.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motion, as the jury was instructed to disregard the improper statement, and it is presumed they followed this instruction. The court also found that any error in the stipulation was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence against Lenhart, including the cause of M.L.'s death, Lenhart's sole care of M.L. at the time, and his failure to call 911. The court affirmed Lenhart's conviction and sentence. View "State v. Lenhart" on Justia Law