Hangman v. Bruening
| Citation | 247 Neb. 769,530 N.W.2d 247 |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. S-93-697,S-93-697 |
| Parties | Keith D. HANGMAN, Appellant, v. Richard J. BRUENING and Rita J. Bruening, Husband and Wife, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Res Judicata: Appeal and Error. An appellate court may raise the issue of res judicata sua sponte.
2. Res Judicata: Judgments. The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in an earlier proceeding, if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the former judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions.
3. Res Judicata: Judgments. Res judicata is based on the principle that a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive upon the parties in any later litigation involving the same cause of action.
4. Res Judicata. The doctrine of res judicata rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on the belief that a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause.
Thomas A. Fitch, of Fitch Law Office, South Sioux City, for appellant.
Wayne E. Boyd, of Boyd Law Office, P.C., South Sioux City, for appellees Bruening.
Keith D. Hangman's 1992 petition to quiet the title to land over which Richard J. Bruening and Rita J. Bruening have an easement must be dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata, an issue which we raise sua sponte.
We vacate the March 8, 1993, judgment of the district court for Dixon County in favor of the Bruenings and remand the cause to that court with direction to dismiss Hangman's June 2, 1992, petition filed against the Bruenings and against any interest the Bruenings have in the easement over Hangman's land.
On April 16, 1991, Hangman brought an action against the Bruenings to quiet title in him to a strip of land 2 rods wide across the north side of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 33, Township 31 North, Range 5 East of the 6th P.M., in Dixon County, Nebraska. In that action, Hangman claimed that the Bruenings had abandoned their easement over the strip of land previously described and that the easement was no longer valid.
On November 27, 1991, after a trial on the merits of the April 16 petition, the district court entered a judgment finding that the Bruenings' easement was valid and that it had not been abandoned by the Bruenings through lack of use. On January 27, 1992, Hangman's motion for a new trial was overruled. We take judicial notice that the records of this court reflect that no appeal was taken by Hangman from the 1991 judgment.
On June 2, 1992, Hangman filed a second quiet title action against the Bruenings "and all other persons having or claiming an interest in" the land here in question. The second law suit, which is the subject of the present appeal, involves the same strip of land and easement that were the subject of the 1991 quiet title action. Hangman's second quiet title action is not based upon the Bruenings' alleged abandonment of their easement, but, rather, upon Hangman's claim that he adversely possessed the strip of land, including Bruenings' easement, for more than 10 years.
On August 4, 1992, Hangman filed a motion for summary judgment against the Bruenings and a motion for default judgment against all other defendants who did not answer Hangman's petition. The motions were overruled. Subsequently, a summary judgment motion filed by the Bruenings was also overruled, and the case was tried in January 1993.
The district court entered an order, filed March 8, 1993, finding, as it had in the first case, that the Bruenings' easement was still in force and had not been abandoned by them. After his motion for new trial was overruled, Hangman appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. Pursuant to our authority to regulate the caseloads of the appellate courts, this case was removed from the Court of Appeals' docket to this court's docket.
This court need not reach the issues ruled upon by the district court in Hangman's 1992 action. At all times relevant herein, Hangman's 1992 action was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata was not raised as an affirmative defense in the Bruenings' amended answer. However, an appellate court may raise the issue of res judicata sua sponte. See, Eggland v. Eggland, 240 Neb. 393, 482 N.W.2d 245 (1992); Dakota Title v. World-Wide Steel Sys., 238 Neb. 519, 471 N.W.2d 430 (1991). We have elected to do so.
Both Hangman's 1991 action and his 1992 action were brought against the Bruenings to quiet title to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Dlc, Ltd.
...former judgment was on the merits; and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions. Hangman v. Bruening, 247 Neb. 769, 771-772, 530 N.W.2d 247, 249 (1995) (citing Wicker v. Vogel, 246 Neb. 601, 521 N.W.2d 907 (1994)); Smith v. Smith, 246 Neb. 193, 517 N.W.2d 394 (199......
-
Fettig v. Estate of Fettig
...522, 280 P.3d 1123, 1131 (2012) ; see also State by Price v. Magoon , 75 Haw. 164, 858 P.2d 712, 725 (1993) ; Hangman v. Bruening , 247 Neb. 769, 530 N.W.2d 247, 249 (1995) ; Valdez v. Smith , 38 N.M. 345, 32 P.2d 1022, 1022-23 (1934) ; 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 985 (2019). Therefore, quiet tit......
-
Ollison v. Village of Climax Springs
...93 Tex. 458, 54 S.W. 347, 351 (1899). See also State by Price v. Magoon, 75 Haw. 164, 858 P.2d 712, 725 (1993); Hangman v. Bruening, 247 Neb. 769, 530 N.W.2d 247, 249 (1995); Valdez v. Smith, 38 N.M. 345, 32 P.2d 1022 (1934); Hanrick v. Gurley, 93 Tex. 458, 56 S.W. 330 (1900); Restatement, ......
-
AM. ESTATE MGT. v. INTERN. INV. & DEV.
...been made in [the prior action]. It is therefore barred[.]"), appeal denied, No. 80701 (Mich. Aug. 28, 1987); Hangman v. Bruening, 247 Neb. 769, 530 N.W.2d 247, 249 (1995) ("The theory of adverse possession could have been raised in the earlier quiet title litigation. All matters which coul......