Huff v. Otto
| Decision Date | 21 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. A-19-536.,A-19-536. |
| Citation | 947 N.W.2d 343,28 Neb.App. 646 |
| Parties | Herchel H. HUFF, appellant, v. Jeff OTTO and JWO Trucking, appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
Herchel H. Huff, pro se.
Justin M. Daake, of Daake Law Office, L.L.C., for appellees.
Herchel H. Huff, pro se, sued Jeff Otto and Otto's company, JWO Trucking (referred to herein individually and collectively as "Otto"), for the alleged negligent care of Huff's vehicle while stored on Otto's property during and after a criminal proceeding involving Huff. Huff appeals the decision of the Furnas County District Court dismissing his case due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because exclusive jurisdiction over Huff's vehicle remained with the court in which Huff's criminal case was filed, the district court properly dismissed Huff's civil action.
In October 2007, Huff was driving his Chevrolet Camaro when it struck and killed a jogger. Huff was arrested in connection with the fatal collision and was subsequently convicted of various charges in connection with the accident. See State v. Huff , 282 Neb. 78, 802 N.W.2d 77 (2011). The Camaro was seized at the scene, and after it was inspected, it was moved to Otto's property where it was stored inside a locked metal shed. At some point, the Camaro was moved from indoor storage to outdoors.
In July 2018, Huff filed a complaint against Otto due to the "destruction" of his Camaro while it was in Otto's care and which "allow[ed] exculpatory evidence to be destroyed" and denied Huff due process of the law. Huff alleged that Otto's storage of the Camaro was negligent. Huff asked for judgment in his favor and for compensatory and punitive damages. Otto moved to dismiss Huff's complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
A telephonic hearing took place on October 16, 2018. Huff mentioned motions he said he had filed, but the court noted they were actually filed in a "criminal case, CR07-11." After argument, Otto's motion to dismiss was taken under advisement. On December 31, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed Huff's claim of a denial of due process (no alleged state action) and his request for punitive damages (not recoverable under Nebraska law). However, the court found that Huff alleged sufficient facts to set forth a negligence claim; the motion to dismiss was overruled with respect to that one claim.
On January 16, 2019, Huff filed an amended complaint. He identified himself as an inmate and Otto as having been under contract with the Furnas County Sheriff's Department to store seized vehicles. Huff further alleged that on October 3, 2007, Huff was inside his Camaro when it struck and killed a jogger. The Camaro was seized at the scene, and after it was inspected, it was moved to Otto's property where it was stored inside a locked metal shed. Huff attached and incorporated into his amended complaint an affidavit by a sheriff. The sheriff visited Otto's property in 2011 and found Huff's vehicle outside with the "T-tops" off and the windows down; Otto informed the sheriff that Huff's vehicle was moved to an outdoor storage pasture " ‘after the trial was over.’ " Huff's vehicle remains there. Huff believed his Camaro was left outdoors to "destroy exculpatory evidence." Huff claimed that his Camaro and its contents were "destroyed" while in the care of Otto in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-2401 to 60-2411 (Reissue 2010) (statutes related to vehicles being towed from restricted parking lots).
Otto again filed a motion to dismiss. At the end of a telephonic hearing on January 30, 2019, Otto's motion to dismiss was taken under advisement. In February, Huff filed a "Motion for County to Pay for Private Investigator" (he wanted the Camaro photographed) and a "Motion for Order to Preserve Evidence (Camaro)," in which he alleged that the court was "well aware" that his criminal "appeals are still being litigated" so that his Camaro "must be inside a secured building."
On May 2, 2019, the district court entered an "Order of Dismissal." It understood Huff's amended complaint set forth two causes of action, one for relief under §§ 60-2401 to 60-2411 and one for the negligent care of his vehicle while it was in the possession of Otto pending the prosecution of Huff for "motor vehicle homicide." The district court took judicial notice of district court case " State of Nebraska v. Herchel H. Huff " at "CR07-11," the criminal case in which Huff was convicted and sentenced for manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide, tampering with a witness, and refusal to submit to a chemical test related to the fatal collision on October 3, 2007. The district court found that the criminal case was still an ongoing action as of May 2, 2019, because Huff was putting forth new claims of innocence and pursuing postconviction proceedings. The court found that the evidence that served as the basis for Huff's initial conviction, i.e., the Camaro, had to be preserved for a possible retrial in the event Huff obtained one. Further, the district court found that the Camaro, the subject matter of the instant case, was in custodia legis or, in other words, under the control of the court overseeing Huff's criminal case. Finally, noting that the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, the district court found it did not have jurisdiction to decide the issues raised by Huff in his amended complaint. The district court stated in its order:
Thus, while Huff may have a claim for the negligent care of the Camaro during its bailment, such claim is not ripe and cannot be decided by the court because the subject matter of his claims, i.e., the Camaro, is currently in the control and custody of the court by reason of the proceedings in [the criminal case]. Because the claim is not ripe and because the court does not have jurisdiction over the matter of the disposition of the Camaro until the proceedings in [the criminal case] are finally resolved, the court finds Huff's amended complaint must be dismissed.
Other pending motions and objections generally related to Huff's various discovery requests and other motions filed by Huff were declared moot by reason of dismissal of the case and were also dismissed.
Huff, pro se, appeals.
Huff assigns that the district court erred by (1) dismissing his amended complaint "by failing to allow [him] his witnesses under the Subpoena Duces Tecum and to take deposition[s]"; (2) denying his amended complaint "before appl[y]ing the standard" in "§ 60-2406"; (3) violating Huff's due process rights "by failing to order [Otto] to preserve the [C]amaro which was potentially exculpatory evidence, and where several motions were filed"; (4) applying the "custodia legis standard, after the [A]ttorney [G]eneral said he was releasing the car, and for the prosecutorial vindictiveness"; and (5) denying motions to recuse Otto's attorney and the assistant Attorney General (not counsel to any party in this action).
A jurisdictional question which 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 trial court's decision. See McEwen v. Nebraska State College Sys. , 303 Neb. 552, 931 N.W.2d 120 (2019).
Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below. Christensen v. Gale , 301 Neb. 19, 917 N.W.2d 145 (2018).
When a trial court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of a claim, issue, or question, an appellate court also lacks the power to determine the merits of the claim, issue, or question presented to the lower court. State v. McGuire , 301 Neb. 895, 921 N.W.2d 77 (2018). Thus, the existence of our jurisdiction depends on whether the district court had jurisdiction. Id.
Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to hear and determine a case in the general class or category to which the proceedings in question belong and to deal with the general subject matter involved. J.S. v. Grand Island Public Schools , 297 Neb. 347, 899 N.W.2d 893 (2017). Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent, nor may subject matter jurisdiction be created by waiver, estoppel, consent, or conduct of the parties. Id. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party or by the court sua sponte. Id. A court action taken without subject matter jurisdiction is void. Id.
The district court noted that Huff's convictions in the criminal case arose out of Huff's operation of his Camaro. See State v. Huff , 282 Neb. 78, 802 N.W.2d 77 (2011) (). The Camaro involved in the criminal case is without question the subject of the present civil case. According to Huff's amended complaint, the Camaro has been in the continuing care of Otto pursuant to a contract with law enforcement ever since it was seized at the scene of the fatal 2007 collision and was subjected to a brief investigation.
The district court correctly found that the Camaro was in custodia legis. Property seized in enforcing a criminal law is said to be "in custodia legis," or in the custody of the court. State v. Agee , 274 Neb. 445, 741 N.W.2d 161 (2007). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818 (Reissue 2016) establishes the basic framework for dealing with seized property, and it provides, in relevant part:
[P]roperty seized under a search warrant or validly seized without a warrant shall be safely kept by the officer seizing the same, unless otherwise directed by the judge or magistrate, and shall be so kept so long as necessary for the purpose of being produced as evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Jacobitz
...transfer the case to a court that can exercise subject matter jurisdiction. See Jackson v. Jensen, supra . See, also, Huff v. Otto , 28 Neb. App. 646, 947 N.W.2d 343 (2020) (court action taken without subject matter jurisdiction is void). The Buffalo County Court determined that § 43-104.05......