Gem City Bone & Joint, P.C. v. Meister
| Decision Date | 07 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. S-19-849.,S-19-849. |
| Citation | 947 N.W.2d 302,306 Neb. 710 |
| Parties | GEM CITY BONE AND JOINT, P.C., appellee, v. Michael W. MEISTER and Michael W. Meister, Attorney at Law, P.C., L.L.O., appellants. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Michael W. Meister, Scottsbluff, for appellants.
Andrew W. Snyder, of Chaloupka, Holyoke, Snyder, Chaloupka & Longoria, P.C., L.L.O., Scottsbluff, for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Michael W. Meister and his professional corporation, Michael W. Meister, Attorney at Law, P.C., L.L.O. (individually and collectively Meister), appeal from the denial of his motion to quash and vacate in a garnishment action, which sought to collaterally attack a Wyoming judgment obtained by Gem City Bone and Joint, P.C. (Gem City), against Meister. Earlier in the registration and enforcement process, Meister and his professional corporation challenged the foreign judgment, claiming the Wyoming court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter a judgment against either his professional corporation or himself, personally. The district court rejected their argument and permitted the registration of the foreign order. Meister and his professional corporation failed to timely appeal the district court's decision. Gem City then requested a garnishment to enforce the registered judgment against Meister individually, which prompted Meister to file a motion to quash the garnishment and to vacate the Wyoming judgment. The district court denied Meister's motion to quash and vacate. Meister appeals.
Meister, an attorney in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, represented Alejandra Garza (Alejandra), a minor, in a personal injury matter. During the course of that representation, it was determined that Alejandra needed surgery. The doctor treating Alejandra recommended that the surgery be performed by Gem City in Laramie, Wyoming. Alejandra's father signed an authorization for treatment and an assignment from any potential settlement proceeds to ensure payment of Alejandra's surgery.
Following the surgery, but before settlement occurred, Alejandra's father passed away and Alejandra obtained the age of majority. Upon settlement, Gem City requested the full amount billed for the treatment, $15,337. Meister disputed this billing, claiming that Gem City should have billed Medicaid and that Nebraska law did not permit Gem City to charge above the Medicaid reimbursement rate of $5,112.33.
A settlement was not reached, and Gem City pursued, in Wyoming, a breach of contract action against Meister and his professional corporation to recover the portion of the settlement assigned to them. Meister entered an appearance in Wyoming, filing a "Rule 12" motion to dismiss for (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) lack of personal jurisdiction, (3) improper venue, and (4) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Before the motion was ruled upon, Meister withdrew the lack of venue and subject matter claims.
Gem City's jurisdictional allegations are contained in the pleadings of the original Wyoming action. Such allegations asserted that the assignment to Gem City has Meister's name listed as the attorney of record. The signature block contains a stamp for "Michael Meister," and the assignment was faxed from Meister's professional corporation's office in Scottsbluff to Gem City. It is further asserted that after receiving the settlement money on the original claim, Meister sent emails to negotiate payment with Gem City. Gem City claims that Meister and his professional corporation's involvement in the assignment and the negotiation emails qualify as directed activities and that Meister and his professional corporation should have expected to be sued in Wyoming in the event of a breach. In addition, Gem City pleads that personal jurisdiction over Meister and his professional corporation was proper because Meister acted in both a personal and professional capacity in representing his client.
There was a hearing on the jurisdiction issue in Wyoming, but the record does not show that any evidence was produced. The district court in Wyoming denied Meister and his professional corporation's motion and proceeded to trial. Neither Meister nor his professional corporation appeared, and the Wyoming court entered default judgment against Meister and his professional corporation, jointly and severally. The Wyoming judgment was not appealed.
Gem City submitted the Wyoming judgment for filing in the district court for Scotts Bluff County pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1587.03 (Reissue 2016) of the Nebraska Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (NUEFJA).1 Meister and his professional corporation first responded by making a motion to dismiss, claiming that the applicant is not an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Nebraska and that the foreign judgment creditor is a professional corporation. This motion was overruled. Shortly thereafter, Meister and his professional corporation filed a pleading entitled "Response to Foreign Judgment," where they again raised the issue of personal jurisdiction. They claimed that Meister and his professional corporation lacked sufficient contacts with the State of Wyoming and that "the court lacked jurisdiction, such to offend the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment." The pleading sought the vacation of the foreign judgment.
Following a hearing in which both parties presented evidence, the district court rejected Meister and his professional corporation's argument and found that they had failed to rebut the presumption that the Wyoming court had personal jurisdiction.2 The district court entered an order overruling Meister and his professional corporation's request to vacate, which the court referred to as "overruling their motion to dismiss," and permitted the registration of the Wyoming judgment on March 25, 2019. In the order, the district court made no distinctions between Meister as an individual and Meister's professional corporation.
An appeal was filed on April 25, 2019. However, the Nebraska Court of Appeals determined that the appeal was untimely and dismissed it pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-107(A)(2) (rev. 2017).
After registering the judgment, the district court ordered garnishment against Meister personally. There is nothing in the record showing Gem City pursued collection efforts against Meister's professional corporation following the registration of the Wyoming judgment. Meister moved to quash the garnishment and vacate the "judgment registered in the above captioned matter." Once again, Meister raised the argument that the Wyoming court did not have personal jurisdiction over him. Meister also argued that because he had legitimate defenses to the default judgment in Wyoming, the court should vacate the entry of the foreign judgment and allow him to raise his defenses in an action in Nebraska.3
The district court overruled Meister's motions to quash and vacate on August 19, 2019, reasoning Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 (Reissue 2016) does not give Nebraska courts the authority to vacate the judgment of a court in a sister state. It also noted that Meister had an opportunity to appeal the order registering the foreign judgment but had failed to timely do so.
On August 21, 2019, the district court entered an order for Meister's property to be delivered to the court. On September 5, Meister filed a notice of appeal.
Meister assigns that the district court erred by finding that the Wyoming court had personal jurisdiction over Meister and his professional corporation. He also assigns as error the failure by the district court to treat the judgment like a Nebraska judgment, which can be vacated where there is a valid defense to the judgment and the judgment was entered as a default judgment rather than a judgment entered on the merits.4
A jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the lower court's decision.5
As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether this appeal is properly before the court as a final order or judgment. Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.6 For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction over an appeal, there must be a final order or final judgment entered by the court from which the appeal is taken.7
We have explained that a judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action.8 A final judgment is one that disposes of the case by dismissing it either before hearing is had upon the merits or after trial by rendition of judgment for the plaintiff or defendant.9 Conversely, every direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing and not included in a judgment, is an order.10 The orders entered in a NUEFJA proceeding are not the result of a trial, nor do any of the orders finally decide the rights of a party in an action. A party registers a foreign judgment and then can pursue enforcement using a series of orders until the judgment is satisfied.11 Under this definition, all of the entries by the district court below, executed under the same case number, are orders entered after the judgment is registered. Therefore, the question is whether we currently have before us a final order.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Supp. 2019) defines final orders and currently states:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tegra Corp. v. Boeshart
...In re Estate of Beltran, supra note 3.63 See, Porter v. Porter , 309 Neb. 167, 959 N.W.2d 235 (2021) ; Gem City Bone & Joint v. Meister , 306 Neb. 710, 947 N.W.2d 302 (2020) ; Tilson v. Tilson , 299 Neb. 64, 907 N.W.2d 31 (2018).64 Platte Valley Nat. Bank v. Lasen, supra note 55, 273 Neb. a......
-
Florence Lake Invs., LLC v. Berg
..., 294 Neb. 294, 883 N.W.2d 48 (2016) ; Cattle Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Watson, supra note 16. See, also, Gem City Bone & Joint v. Meister , 306 Neb. 710, 947 N.W.2d 302 (2020).18 Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier , 279 Neb. 661, 683, 782 N.W.2d 848, 867 (2010), disapproved on other gr......
-
Florence Lake Invs. v. Berg
... ... Wentz III and Caitlin J. Ellis, of Jackson Lewis, ... PC, for garnishee-appellee Zoetis, Inc ... v. Watson, supra note 16. See, ... also, Gem City Bone & Joint v. Meister, 306 Neb ... 710, 947 N.W.2d 302 ... ...
-
Walters v. Frakes
...it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it. Gem City Bone & Joint v. Meister , 306 Neb. 710, 947 N.W.2d 302 (2020).Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to hear and determine a case in the general class or categor......