Kerndt v. Ronan, 88-785

Citation236 Neb. 26,458 N.W.2d 466
Decision Date03 August 1990
Docket NumberNo. 88-785,88-785
CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
PartiesWarren KERNDT, Appellant, v. John T. RONAN, Sr., et al., Appellees.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Judgments: Res Judicata. The doctrine of 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.

2. Judgments: Res Judicata. The doctrine of res judicata dictates that any right, fact, or matter which has been expressly or directly adjudicated on the merits in a previous action before a court acting within its jurisdiction, or which was necessarily included in the determination of the previous action, is conclusively settled by the judgment in the previous action and may not be relitigated by the parties to the previous action, whether the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter in subsequent litigation would or would not be the same as that in the previous litigation.

3. Judgments: Res Judicata: Proof. A party relying on a judgment as the basis for application of the doctrine of res judicata has the burden to prove that the prior judgment was an adjudication on the merits.

4. Judgments: Res Judicata. The doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable if there was no final judgment on the merits in the previous proceeding which is used as the basis for application of the doctrine.

5. Judgments: Res Judicata. For the purpose of the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits involves legal rights as distinguished from mere matters of practice, procedure, jurisdiction, or form.

6. Judgments: Words and Phrases. Ambiguity exists in an instrument when a word, phrase, or provision in the instrument has, or is susceptible of, at least two reasonable but conflicting interpretations or meanings.

7. Judgments: Courts: Appeal and Error. After the time for appeal from a judgment has passed, a trial court's postjudgment interpretation of the judgment is irrelevant to an appellate court's determination of the judgment's meaning, which, as a matter of law, is determined by the contents of the judgment in question.

8. Judgments: Res Judicata. If a previous judgment is ambiguous as to whether the judgment was on the merits, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable.

Thomas H. Dahlk, of Lieben, Dahlk, Whitted, Houghton & Jahn, P.C., Omaha, for appellant.

Jeff C. Miller, of Young & White, Omaha, for appellees.

HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ.

SHANAHAN, Justice.

Warren Kerndt filed an action in the district court for Dodge County and sought dissolution of a partnership involving Kerndt, an accounting, and damages. The alleged partnership consisted of Ronan & Associates, Inc., John T. Ronan, Sr., and John T. Ronan, Jr. (the preceding corporation and persons are collectively called "Ronans"); Gary W. Dross; and Kerndt. Finding that Kerndt's action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, the court granted summary judgment to Ronans and dismissed Kerndt's action.

"DROSS ACTION"

On May 5, 1986, Dross filed an action in the district court for Dodge County, in which Dross sought a partnership dissolution and accounting. The alleged partnership included Dross, Ronans, and Kerndt, who was not joined in the action. Ronans moved for dismissal because Dross had failed to join Kerndt as a necessary party. The court sustained Ronans' motion, but allowed 2 weeks for Dross' amended petition or Kerndt's intervention in the suit. Kerndt filed his intervention petition, which was nearly identical to Dross' petition, except Kerndt alleged that he had not been paid sums required by his oral contract with Ronans. Ronans, alleging that Dross and Kerndt had interfered with Ronans' business relationships, filed a counterclaim against Dross and Kerndt.

All claims within the Dross action were dismissed when the court entered an order, which provided in its entirety:

On January 5th, 1987, this matter came on for trial. Trial was resumed on January 16, 1987. Thereupon the matter of trial was continued. Trial resumed on March 4th, 1987, and was continued until April 2nd, 1987. Trial resumed on April 2nd, 1987, and evidence was further adduced.

At the close of taking of evidence, the Court and counsel discussed a time schedule in which the parties would submit their closing argument in writing, as well as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Plaintiff and Intervenors [sic] were granted until April 13, 1987, to submit their argument and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Defendants were given until April 27, 1987, to answer thereto. Plaintiff and Intervenors To date neither the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, nor the Defendants have submitted to the Court their closing argument, nor their proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

[sic] were given until May 4, 1987, to reply.

Now, the Court being fully advised in the premises does FIND and ORDER that the Plaintiff's Petition, the Intervenor's Petition, and the Defendants' Counterclaim should be, and are hereby, dismissed; with each party bearing their own cost.

Dated this 24th day of June, 1987.

Dross and Kerndt filed a motion and requested that the court vacate its dismissal judgment or grant a new trial. The court denied the motion. Neither Dross nor Kerndt appealed.

"KERNDT ACTION"

On February 5, 1988, in the district court for Douglas County, Kerndt filed an action against Ronans for a dissolution and accounting of the partnership composed of Kerndt, Dross, and Ronans. Kerndt also alleged that he had not been compensated for services that he performed for Ronans pursuant to an oral agreement. After successfully transferring the case to the district court for Dodge County, Ronans moved for summary judgment on the ground that dismissal of the Dross lawsuit in 1987 barred Kerndt's action in 1988. Finding that the doctrine of res judicata applied to and barred Kerndt's action filed in 1988, the district court determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact, sustained Ronans' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Kerndt's action.

The order overruling Kerndt's motion for a new trial, entered September 6, 1988, recited that Kerndt's action is "barred under the doctrine of res judicata as the Order of June 24, 1987 entered in [Kerndt's] previous case in this Court on these same causes of action, was a decision of dismissal on the merits based on the testimony and evidence adduced during trial...."

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Kerndt has appealed and, in his sole assignment of error, contends that the district court erred in its conclusion that the 1987 dismissal order in the Dross action "was a ruling on the merits rather than a dismissal without prejudice, and that the dismissal served as a bar under the doctrine of res judicata." Brief for appellant at 1.

THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

"The doctrine of 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." NC + Hybrids v. Growers Seed Assn., 228 Neb. 306, 310, 422 N.W.2d 542, 545 (1988); State v. Gerdes, 233 Neb. 528, 446 N.W.2d 224 (1989).

The doctrine of res judicata dictates that any right, fact, or matter which has been expressly or directly adjudicated on the merits in a previous action before a court acting within its jurisdiction, or which was necessarily included in the determination of the previous action, is conclusively settled by the judgment in the previous action and may not be relitigated by the parties to the previous action, whether the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter in subsequent litigation would or would not be the same as that in the previous litigation. State v. Gerdes, supra; Security State Bank v. Gugelman, 230 Neb. 842, 434 N.W.2d 290 (1989). A party relying on a judgment as the basis for application of the doctrine of res judicata has the burden to prove that the prior judgment was an adjudication on the merits. See State v. Gerdes, supra.

From the foregoing, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable if there was no final judgment on the merits in the previous proceeding which is used as the basis for application of the doctrine. Cf. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 1989) (which provides that a final order is "[a]n order affecting a substantial right in an action ..."). Furthermore, at least "[f]or the purposes of res judicata, the definition of a judgment on the merits is one which 'is based on legal rights as distinguished from mere matters of practice, procedure, jurisdiction, or form.' " Harper Plastics v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 657 F.2d 939, 943 (7th Cir.1981) (quoting Fairmont Aluminum Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 222 F.2d 622 (4th Cir.1955), cert. denied 350 U.S. 838, 76 S.Ct. 76, 100 L.Ed. 748). See, also, Points v. Oklahoma Pub. Co., 672 P.2d 1146 (Okla.1983); Bi-State Dev. Agency v. Whelan Sec., 679 S.W.2d 332 (Mo.App.1984).

In support of his argument that dismissal of the Dross action was not a judgment on the merits, Kerndt directs our attention to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-601 (Reissue 1989), which provides in relevant part: "An action may be dismissed without prejudice to a future action ... (5) by the court for disobedience by the plaintiff of an order concerning the proceedings in the action. In all other cases on the trial of the action the decision...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Foreman v. AS Mid-America, Inc., MID-AMERIC
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 25 Septiembre 1998
    ...on jurisdictional grounds. Concerned Citizens v. Department of Environ. Contr., 244 Neb. 152, 505 N.W.2d 654 (1993); Kerndt v. Ronan, 236 Neb. 26, 458 N.W.2d 466 (1990); Nelson v. Sioux City Boat Club, 216 Neb. 484, 344 N.W.2d 634 (1984). A summary judgment motion based on a jurisdictional ......
  • Timm v. Delong, 8:98CV43.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • 22 Junio 1998
    ...(Neb.1994); see also Antelope County Farmers Coop. v. Citizens State Bank, 240 Neb. 760, 484 N.W.2d 822 (Neb.1992); Kerndt v. Ronan, 236 Neb. 26, 458 N.W.2d 466 (Neb.1990); State v. Gerdes, 233 Neb. 528, 446 N.W.2d 224 (Neb.1989); NC + Hybrids v. Growers Seed Ass'n, 228 Neb. 306, 422 N.W.2d......
  • Harrington v. Strong, 8:18CV383
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • 29 Enero 2019
    ...Although a dismissal based on lack 363 F.Supp.3d 1000of subject-matter jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits, Kerndt v. Ronan , 236 Neb. 26, 458 N.W.2d 466, 469-70 (1990), the State Court did not find that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the above-mentioned claims entirely......
  • DeVaux v. DeVaux
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 15 Abril 1994
    ...in both actions. See, e.g., Antelope Cty. Farmers Coop. v. Citizens State Bank, 240 Neb. 760, 484 N.W.2d 822 (1992); Kerndt v. Ronan, 236 Neb. 26, 458 N.W.2d 466 (1990); State v. Gerdes, 233 Neb. 528, 446 N.W.2d 224 (1989); NC + Hybrids v. Growers Seed Assn., 228 Neb. 306, 422 N.W.2d 542 (1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT