NP Dodge Mgmt. v. Holcomb
| Citation | 314 Neb. 748 |
| Docket Number | S-22-272 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 2023 |
| Parties | NP Dodge Management Company, appellee v. Teresa Holcomb, appellant |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Moot Question: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Because mootness is a justiciability doctrine that operates to prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction, an appellate court reviews mootness determinations under the same standard of review as other jurisdictional questions.
2. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute its determination is a matter of law, which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the decisions made by lower courts.
3. Moot Question: Words and Phrases. A case is moot if the facts underlying the dispute have changed, such that the issues presented are no longer alive.
4. Moot Question. The central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief.
5. Moot Question: Appeal and Error. The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine requires an appellate court to consider (1) the public or private nature of the question presented (2) the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for guidance of public officials, and (3) the likelihood of recurrence of the same or a similar problem.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, J. Michael Coffey, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for Douglas County, Darryl R. Lowe, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Caitlin Cedfeldt, of Legal Aid of Nebraska, and Kasey D Ogle, of Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, for appellant.
Andrew J. McElmeel, of Goosmann Law Firm, P.L.C., and Gene M. Eckel and Tara E. Holterhaus, of Spencer Fane, L.L.P., for appellee. Lindsay R. Belmont, of Koenig | Dunne, P.C., L.L.O., for amicus curiae National Housing Law Project.
Russell E. Lovell II, for amicus curiae Iowa-Nebraska NAACP, and Rebecca Scout Richters for amicus curiae ACLU Foundation of Nebraska.
Kevin Ruser, Ryan P. Sullivan, Rachel Tomlinson Dick, and Alan Dugger for amicus curiae University of Nebraska College of Law Civil Clinical Law Program.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, James A. Campbell, and Christian Edmonds for amicus curiae Attorney General.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
When Teresa Holcomb allegedly breached the terms of her residential lease agreement, her landlord, NP Dodge Management Company (NP Dodge), terminated the lease. Holcomb did not leave the property, and NP Dodge initiated eviction proceedings under Nebraska's Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (the NURLTA). See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1401 et seq. (Reissue 2018). Holcomb requested a jury trial. The county court denied her request, held a bench trial, found in favor of NP Dodge, and ordered restitution of the premises to NP Dodge. Holcomb appealed to the district court, but before that appeal was decided, the county court issued a writ of restitution, whereby Holcomb was removed from the property. The district court later affirmed in all respects.
Holcomb's principal argument on appeal is that § 76-1446, which mandates a bench trial for a possession action under the NURLTA, violates article I, § 6, of the Nebraska Constitution, which provides that the "right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." We find the case is moot and therefore dismiss the appeal.
Lease Agreement and Termination.
Holcomb and NP Dodge signed a residential lease agreement in August 2020. The lease was for 1 year and was set to expire on July 31, 2021. An addendum to the agreement granted NP Dodge the right to terminate the lease if Holcomb engaged in illegal activity, acts of violence, or threats of violence. On May 6, Holcomb allegedly threatened two residents in the common area of the leased property, and police officers responded to the scene. The next day, pursuant to the addendum, NP Dodge served Holcomb a written notice of termination that required her to vacate the premises within 5 days. Holcomb did not comply.
Bench Trial.
On May 19, 2021, NP Dodge filed a complaint in county court seeking restitution of the premises pursuant to the NURLTA. Holcomb denied the allegations in the complaint and requested a jury trial. On June 9, the county court denied Holcomb's request and conducted a bench trial. After the bench trial, the county court found that Holcomb breached the addendum to the lease agreement and entered judgment in favor of NP Dodge. The county court further ordered NP Dodge not to execute a writ of restitution, the means by which it could have Holcomb removed from the premises, until July 9.
Posttrial Procedural History.
On June 22, 2021, Holcomb filed a notice of appeal to the district court. She also filed a motion requesting that the county court stay enforcement of the writ of restitution until the county court set an appeal bond and Holcomb had an opportunity to put up the bond. On July 27, NP Dodge filed a praecipe for writ of restitution, which the county court granted the next day. A Douglas County constable executed the writ and removed Holcomb from the apartment on July 29.
On August 3, 2021, the county court entered an order setting a supersedeas bond in the amount of $225, and additionally ordering Holcomb to make monthly payments to NP Dodge of $225 while the appeal was pending. The county court's order stated that any writ of restitution was to "be recalled" until after the deadline by which the supersedeas bond was to be paid. The county court judge apparently was unaware that the writ of restitution had already been executed.
In her appeal to the district court, Holcomb preserved three arguments relevant to this appeal. First, Holcomb argued that the county court violated article I, § 6, of the Nebraska Constitution by denying her request for a jury trial. Second, Holcomb asserted that the county court violated § 76-1447 by issuing the writ of restitution prior to setting an appeal bond, the payment of which would have stayed execution of the writ while the appeal was pending. Third, Holcomb argued that the county court violated her constitutional right to due process by issuing the writ of restitution without first serving her notice that the writ would issue.
The district court rejected each of Holcomb's arguments. Holcomb appealed again and petitioned to bypass the Nebraska Court of Appeals. We granted the petition to bypass.
After oral argument in this matter, we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the case had become moot and, if so, whether we should address any of the issues raised under exceptions to the general rule that moot cases are subject to dismissal.
Holcomb assigns that the district court erred (1) in affirming the county court's denial of her request for a jury trial contrary to article I, § 6, of the Nebraska Constitution; (2) in affirming the county court's issuance of the writ of restitution prior to setting an appeal bond contrary to § 76-1447; and (3) in affirming the county court's issuance of the writ of restitution without first serving notice to Holcomb, in violation of her constitutional right to due process.
Because mootness is a justiciability doctrine that operates to prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction, an appellate court reviews mootness determinations under the same standard of review as other jurisdictional questions. Weatherly v Cochran, 301 Neb. 426, 918 N.W.2d 868 (2018). When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, its determination is a matter of law, which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the decisions made by lower courts. Id.
We first confront whether this case is moot given that the writ of restitution was executed and Holcomb was removed from the apartment. A case is moot if the facts underlying the dispute have changed, such that the "issues presented are no longer alive." See Nebuda v. Dodge Cty. Sch. Dist. 0062, 290 Neb. 740, 747, 861 N.W.2d 742, 749 (2015). The central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief. Id. Or, as another state supreme court has described mootness, "[a] moot case exists where a judgment rendered by the court will have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court." Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 26, 630 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006).
Holcomb argues in this appeal that she was wrongfully evicted because a court, rather than a jury, found that she breached the lease agreement, in violation of her constitutional right to a jury trial. She also argues that she should have had the opportunity to remain in her apartment pending an appeal, but that the county court erred by issuing a writ of restitution without giving her the opportunity to stay issuance of the writ.
There is no meaningful relief we could provide to remedy any errors pertaining to Holcomb's attempt to stay in her apartment pending appeal. Holcomb was removed from her apartment prior to the completion of the appellate process. Even if we were to find error in that removal, there is nothing we can do now that would allow her to stay in her apartment pending appeal.
As for Holcomb's claim that she should have received a jury trial, she argues that, if we were to find in her favor on that issue, we could grant meaningful relief by...
To continue reading
Request your trial