Hutchinson v. William Stretesky Found. (In re Stretesky)
| Decision Date | 12 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. A-19-1077.,A-19-1077. |
| Citation | 955 N.W.2d 1,29 Neb.App. 338 |
| Parties | IN RE ESTATE OF Neil S. STRETESKY, deceased. Michael Hutchinson et al., appellees, v. The William Stretesky Foundation, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
R. Kevin O'Donnell, of Law Office of R. Kevin O'Donnell, P.C., L.L.O., Ogallala, for appellant.
Brock D. Wurl, of Paloucek, Herman & Wurl Law Offices, North Platte, and Randy C. Fair, of Dudden & Fair, P.C., L.L.O., Ogallala, for appellees.
The William Stretesky Foundation (the Foundation) appeals from an order of the Deuel County Court which determined that the Foundation did not have a lien against Neil S. Stretesky's property at the time of his death and therefore denied the Foundation's petition for enforcement of claim to collect its judgment against Stretesky's estate. Based on the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In December 2014, the Foundation filed a complaint for restitution of premises in Deuel County Court against Stretesky, who was a tenant on certain real property owned by the Foundation. In January 2015, the county court entered an order in favor of the Foundation, ordering Stretesky to vacate the property. The issue of damages was to be determined at a later date. Prior to the determination of damages, the matter was moved to the district court for Deuel County (case No. CI 15-004) because the requested damages exceeded the statutory monetary jurisdiction of the county court.
On December 3, 2015, Stretesky was shot and killed by law enforcement after he shot Deuel County Deputy Sheriff Michael Hutchinson. On December 8, the Foundation filed a motion for revivor and suggestion of death, asking that the action be revived against the personal representative of Stretesky's estate. The district court entered an order of revivor substituting the personal representative as defendant in place of Stretesky.
On February 11, 2016, the Foundation filed a statement of claim in the county court against Stretesky's estate (case No. PR 15-010), which stated that damages would be determined in case No. CI 15-004 in district court.
On March 18, 2016, following a trial to determine damages arising out of the Foundation's December 2014 complaint, the district court entered an order in case No. CI 15-004. It divided stored grain between the Foundation and Stretesky, as set forth in the lease, and awarded the Foundation damages for expenses it had paid that should have been paid by Stretesky under the lease agreement. The district court awarded Stretesky crop insurance proceeds that were being held by the Ray Insurance Agency, an agent for Heartland Crop Insurance. It noted that the Foundation had sought a lien against this interest of Stretesky to preserve its ability to recover any judgment entered against Stretesky. In regard to the Foundation's request for a lien against the crop insurance proceeds, the district court stated:
The district court subsequently entered an amended order altering the amount of damages awarded for one specific item. All other provisions in the March 18, 2016, order were to remain in full force and effect. The Foundation obtained a judgment in the amount of $53,816.01.
On July 25, 2016, the Foundation filed a partial satisfaction of judgment in case No. CI 15-004 after it received a check in the amount of $23,468.10 for stored grain. It stated that Stretesky still owed it the balance of the judgment in the amount of $30,347.91 plus interest.
On December 6, 2018, the court entered an order allowing Heartland Crop Insurance to deposit crop insurance proceeds in the sum of $43,788 with the clerk of the Deuel County Court and discharged Heartland Crop Insurance from any further responsibility.
On August 30, 2019, the Foundation filed a petition for enforcement of claim against Stretesky's estate, asking the county court to allow it to enforce its lien and satisfy the lien balance of $30,347.91 out of the crop insurance proceeds previously deposited with the county court by Heartland Crop Insurance.
Hutchinson filed an objection to the Foundation's petition for enforcement of claim and his own petition for enforcement of claim. He objected to the court's ordering disbursement of any funds in the estate until all parties having a claim had been heard, arguing that he was entitled to have his damages resulting from injuries caused by Stretesky paid by Stretesky's estate.
On October 24, 2019, the county court denied the Foundation's petition for enforcement of claim. The county court concluded that although the Foundation had litigation pending against Stretesky at the time of his death, it did not have a judgment or a lien against Stretesky's property at the time of his death.
The Foundation assigns that (1) the county court erred in its interpretation of McCook Nat. Bank v. Bennett , 248 Neb. 567, 537 N.W.2d 353 (1995) ; (2) the Deuel County District Court's award of a judgment and a judgment lien to the Foundation in case No. CI 15-004 precluded the Deuel County Court in the present case from making any findings in regard to the existence of a judgment lien; (3) the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction with regard to the application of judgment liens because of issue preclusion; and (4) the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction with regard to judgment liens, because there is no specific legislative mandate granting such powers to county courts.
An appeal from the county court's allowance or disallowance of a claim in probate will be heard as an appeal from an action at law. In re Trust of Margie E. Cook , 28 Neb. App. 624, 947 N.W.2d 870 (2020).
When reviewing questions of law in a probate matter, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the court below. In re Estate of Odenreider , 286 Neb. 480, 837 N.W.2d 756 (2013).
McCook Nat. Bank Opinion.
The Foundation first argues that the court misinterpreted the Nebraska Supreme Court's findings in McCook Nat. Bank, supra , in considering the Foundation's claim. The Foundation argued that McCook Nat. Bank supported its argument that it held a lien against the crop insurance proceeds and that such lien should be enforced outside of probate proceedings. The county court did not agree.
In McCook Nat. Bank, supra , the bank obtained a judgment against Edd Case and a judgment lien attached to real estate owned by Case in Hitchcock County by operation of law. Case died before satisfaction of the judgment. After Case's death, the action was revived against his personal representative. The bank sought to enforce the judgment lien against proceeds from the sale of real estate Case owned at the time of his death. The bank did not make a claim in the probate proceedings pursuant to the Nebraska Probate Code. The district court ordered proceeds from the sale of real estate disbursed to the bank, the judgment lienholder. The personal representative appealed, arguing that because the bank did not make a claim in the probate proceedings, enforcement of the lien was barred.
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order, holding that the provisions of the Nebraska Probate Code explicitly exempt liens from the definition of both a claim and a liability. McCook Nat. Bank, supra . It further held that a judgment lien is not a claim and not subject to the provisions of the Nebraska Probate Code. McCook Nat. Bank, supra . The court therefore concluded that the judgment lien held by the bank was not a claim under the Nebraska Probate Code and that the bank, as the judgment debtor, was free to proceed in the district court without filing a claim in the probate proceedings. McCook Nat. Bank, supra .
In the present case, the county court determined that this case was distinguishable from McCook Nat. Bank v. Bennett , 248 Neb. 567, 537 N.W.2d 353 (1995), because the Foundation did not have a judgment or judgment lien against Stretesky prior to his death. The Foundation had litigation pending against Stretesky at the time of his death, but the Foundation did not obtain its judgment until after his death. Conversely, in McCook Nat. Bank , the bank obtained a judgment against Case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapter 4B Why We Need Mining and Mining Lawyers in the U.S.
...See Matter of Issuance of Air Emissions Permit No. 13700345-101 for PolyMet Mining, Inc. City of Hoyt Lakes, St. Louis Cty., Minnesota, 955 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2021) [13] MPCA is responsible for both the surface water permit based on CWA delegation from EPA and the state permit. MPCA o......