Fecht v. Quality Processing, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. S-91-266,S-91-266
• Citation: 244 Neb. 522,508 N.W.2d 236
• Parties: John A. FECHT, Director, Warehouse Department, Nebraska Public Service Commission, Appellee, v. QUALITY PROCESSING, INC., Appellee, and Thomas Cullan and Harry Cullan, Doing Business as Cullan Farms, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 236

508 N.W.2d 236

244 Neb. 522

John A. FECHT, Director, Warehouse Department, Nebraska Public Service Commission, Appellee, v. QUALITY PROCESSING, INC., Appellee, and Thomas Cullan and Harry Cullan, Doing Business as Cullan Farms, et al., Appellants.

No. S-91-266.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Nov. 19, 1993.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the trial court.

2. Sales: Public Service Commission: Notice: Time. Under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 75-905(1)(c) (Reissue 1990), a seller has no recourse to the security of a grain dealer unless the Public Service Commission has notice of any apparent loss within 10 days.

Terry Curtiss, of Curtiss, Moravek & Curtiss, P.C., Alliance, for appellants.

Don Stenberg, Atty. Gen., and L. Jay Bartel, Lincoln, for appellee Fecht.

HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, FAHRNBRUCH, and LANPHIER, JJ.

BOSLAUGH, Justice.

This is an appeal from a modified order determining claims entered by the Nebraska Public Service Commission (PSC) on February 12, 1991. The modified order amended an order determining claims entered by the PSC on August 28, 1990, allowing and disallowing various claims made against the bond of Quality Processing, Inc. (QPI), a licensed grain dealer whose license was revoked by the PSC on April 24, 1990.

Nebraska's Grain Dealer Act requires all licensed grain dealers to post security in the event the grain dealer fails to pay for grain it has purchased and received. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 75-903 (Reissue 1990).

The appellants are producers who sold and delivered dry edible beans to QPI but were not paid. The complainant-appellee is John A. Fecht, the director of the Warehouse Department of the PSC.

QPI was obligated by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 75-905 (Reissue 1990) to pay for all grain purchased within 10 days of its receipt. QPI did not do so, but negotiated contracts with the appellants to make payment for the beans at subsequent dates.

On February 27, 1990, Fecht, as director of the PSC's Warehouse Department, filed a complaint and request for temporary suspension of QPI's license pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 75-903.01 (Reissue 1990). The complaint alleged that QPI was in violation of its grain dealer security because QPI had failed to pay for dry edible beans delivered to it by two producers who had contracts for the purchase of their beans.

On March 2, the PSC examined QPI's records. The examination revealed that in addition to not paying the contracts of the parties listed in the complaint, QPI had failed to make payments due on numerous other contracts for the purchase of edible beans. On March 28, a hearing was held before the PSC concerning the allegations in the complaint. The appellants' attorney presented evidence of their claims and was granted leave to mail further claims at a later date.

Section 75-905 provides:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, no seller shall have recourse to the grain dealer's security unless the seller:

(a) Demands that payment from the grain dealer be made within ten days of the date the grain dealer takes possession of the seller's grain;

(b) Negotiates any negotiable instrument issued as payment for grain by the grain dealer within ten days of its issuance; and

(c) Notifies the commission within ten days of any apparent loss to be covered under the terms of the grain dealer's security.

(2) When grain is delivered to a grain dealer in multiple shipments comprising one contract, the seller shall not have recourse to the grain dealer's security unless the seller notifies the commission within forty-five days of the date of the first shipment of any apparent loss to be covered under the terms of the grain dealer's security.

The appellants' claims were denied by the PSC because they were not presented to the PSC within 10 days of the date the appellants' contracts for payment became due and were not paid.

The appellants contend the PSC erred in its determination as to when their apparent losses occurred and in allowing some, but not all, claims discovered in its investigation of QPI made on March 2, 1990.

Although in an appeal from the commission this court ordinarily examines the record to determine whether the commission acted within the scope of its authority and whether the evidence establishes that the order in question is not unreasonable or arbitrary, In re Application of A Touch of Class Limousine, Inc., ante p. [243 Neb.] 33, 497 N.W.2d 71 (1993), and In re Application of Overland Armored Exp., 229 Neb. 524, 428 N.W.2d 166 (1988), the issues presented by the assignments of error in this case are controlled by statute. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the trial court. Curry v. State ex rel. Stenberg, 242 Neb. 695, 496 N.W.2d 512 (1993); Northern Bank v. Federal Dep. Ins. Corp., 242 Neb. 591, 496 N.W.2d 459 (1993).

Fecht v....