Sanitary and Imp. Dist. No. 272 of Douglas County v. Marquardt, 87-761

• Citation: 233 Neb. 39,443 N.W.2d 877
• Decision Date: 04 August 1989
• Docket Number: No. 87-761,87-761
• Parties: , 9 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1042 SANITARY AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 272 OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, Nebraska, Appellant, v. Bernard MARQUARDT, an Individual, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

Page 877

443 N.W.2d 877

233 Neb. 39, 9 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1042

SANITARY AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 272 OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, Nebraska, Appellant, v. Bernard MARQUARDT, an Individual, et al., Appellees.

No. 87-761.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Aug. 4, 1989.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Demurrer: Declaratory Judgments. The use and determination of a demurrer in actions arising under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 25-21, 149 et seq. (Reissue 1985), are controlled by the same principles as apply in other cases.

2. Demurrer: Pleadings. When considering a general demurrer, the petition is to be liberally construed; if as so construed the petition states a cause of action, the demurrer is to be overruled.

3. Demurrer: Pleadings. In ruling on a general demurrer, a court is required to accept the truth of facts well pled and the factual and legal inferences which may reasonably be deduced from such facts, but does not accept the conclusions of the pleader; nor may a court assume the existence of any facts not alleged, find facts in aid of the pleading, or consider evidence which may be introduced at trial.

4. Actions: Words and Phrases. A cause of action consists of the fact or facts which give one the right to judicial relief.

5. Sanitary and Improvement Districts: Warrants: Words and Phrases: Uniform Commercial Code. Sanitary and improvement district warrants are investment securities under article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

6. Sanitary and Improvement Districts: Municipal Corporations: Uniform Commercial Code: Words and Phrases. A sanitary and improvement district is a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the state and, as such, is a "government or governmental agency or unit" for the purposes of Neb.U.C.C. § 8-202 (Reissue 1980).

7. Uniform Commercial Code: Warrants: Consideration: Notice. None of the events which validate an otherwise defective governmental investment security under the provisions of Neb.U.C.C. § 8-202 (Reissue 1980) apply unless the warrants in question are in the hands of purchasers for value and without notice of the claimed defect.

8. Pleadings: Actions: Parties: Joinder. Causes of action involving different defendants cannot be joined unless each cause affects all the defendants and they have a joint or common liability or interest.

9. Pleadings: Actions. In determining whether more than one cause of action is stated, the main test is whether more than one primary right or subject of controversy is presented; other tests are whether recovery on one ground would bar recovery on the other, whether the same evidence would support different counts, and whether separate actions could be maintained for separate relief.

Steven J. Riekes, of Richards, Riekes, Brown & Zabin, P.C., Omaha, for appellant.

Eugene L. Pieper, David J. Koukol, and Robert L. Homan, Omaha, of Thompson, Crounse, Pieper, Wallace and Eggers, P.C., and Dennis E. Martin, of Martin & Martin, Omaha, for appellees Eggert, et al.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant, Sanitary and Improvement District No. 272 of Douglas County, challenges the trial court's dismissal of its operative petition for declaratory judgment following the sustainment of demurrers filed by certain of the defendants-appellees. We affirm in part, and in part reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The aforesaid petition names 2 corporate and 31 individual defendants, including "John Doe and Richard Roe, real and true names unknown," alleging, in sum, that the corporate defendants, M & A Enterprises, Inc., and M & A Irrigation Supplies, Inc., and the three principals of these entities, defendants Bernard Marquardt, George Allison, Jr., and John Hoich, conspired together with defendant David Weyh, an irrigation contractor, and with the former chairman of the district's board of trustees, defendant Francis Sullivan, to defraud the district by devising a scheme to construct an in-ground green space irrigation system in circumvention of the statutory requirements for approval by various duly constituted public bodies of the city of Omaha and county of Douglas. The petition further asserts that the former attorney for the district, defendant Warren Zweiback, breached his fiduciary duty to the district by assisting the scheme; that former district trustees, defendants Rick Cushing, Patrick Kelley, Louise Scolaro, and David Ecklund, breached their fiduciary duties to the district by approving the contracts drawn pursuant to the scheme; that the remaining 21 individual named defendants hold warrants drawn on the district's accounts pursuant to the fraudulent scheme; and that these warrants are void because they were issued as a result of the scheme. The petition names as a defendant "Sam J. Howell, Treasurer of Douglas County," averring that he, as ex officio treasurer of the district, is the individual charged with the duty to pay the district's warrants as they come due.

For the sake of convenience, where appropriate, the various defendants will be referred to hereinafter as follows: defendants Marquardt, Allison, Hoich, M & A Enterprises, M & A Irrigation Supplies, and Weyh as the "contractor defendants"; defendants Sullivan, Cushing, Ecklund, Kelley, Scolaro, and Zweiback as the "board defendants"; and defendants Orville Eggert, Elinor Eggert, Donald W. Pederson, Philip W. Smith, Carol Ann Mellott, Barbara Jo Benson, Suzanne Kay Yost, Don W. Elliott, Jayne E. Eades, Arley A. Westendorf, Darrel Adamson, Marjorie A. Ward, Jacqulyn R. Bandiera, Phyllis L. Phalen, Gale V. Mares, Victor Mares, Walter J. Westendorf, William F. Ginn, Sara F. Ginn, and John Doe and Richard Roe, real and true names unknown, as the "holder defendants."

The petition prays, in essence, that the subject contracts and warrants issued pursuant to them be declared void; that certain of the contractor defendants and all of the holder defendants be enjoined from taking action for the payment of any warrant they own or hold; that defendant Howell be enjoined from paying the subject warrants; that certain of the contractor defendants and all of the board defendants be required to hold the district harmless from any liability it may be found to have with respect to any warrant "declared to be lawful in the hands of an innocent holder"; and that defendant Sullivan restore to the district the value of any favors or gratuities he received in connection with the scheme.

The holder defendants, except for Eades, Bandiera, the Ginns, and, of course, Doe and Roe, filed the demurrers referred to in the first paragraph of this opinion, which demurrers assert that the district's operative petition fails to state a cause of action against them and contains a misjoinder of parties and causes.

The district seems to argue for special relaxation of the rules of pleading in cases seeking relief under the provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 25-21, 149 et seq. (Reissue 1985 & Cum.Supp.1986). It has, however, long been the rule in this state that " '[t]he use and determination of the demurrer in actions arising under Declaratory Judgment Act is controlled by the same principles as apply in other cases.' " Gottula v. Standard Reliance Ins. Co., 165 Neb. 1, 4, 84 N.W.2d 179, 182 (1957).

The rules with which we are first concerned are that when considering a general demurrer, that is, one which challenges the sufficiency of the allegations to state a cause of action, the petition is to be liberally construed; if as so construed the petition states a cause of action, the demurrer is to be overruled. Schoneweis v. Dando, 231 Neb. 180, 435 N.W.2d 666 (1989). More specifically, in ruling on a general demurrer, a court is required to accept the truth of facts well pled and the factual and legal inferences which may reasonably be deduced from such facts, but does not accept the conclusions of the pleader. Nor may a court assume the existence of any facts not alleged, find facts in aid of the pleading, or consider evidence which may be introduced at trial. Moore v. Grammer, 232 Neb. 795, 442 N.W.2d 861 (1989); Security Inv. Co. v. State, 231 Neb. 536, 437 N.W.2d 439 (1989).

This court has recently observed that a cause of action consists of the fact or facts which give one the right to judicial relief. Schoneweis v. Dando, supra. The district maintains that the various holder defendants have in hand warrants it issued between June 13, 1984, and December 11, 1985, pursuant to fraudulent contracts, for which reason the warrants are void, and that these warrants, which represent capital expenditures, put the district's "public funds and property ... in jeopardy." In this connection, we note that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 31-727(5) (Reissue 1988) provides in relevant part:

(c) Capital outlay shall mean expenditures for construction or reconstruction of major permanent facilities having an expected long life, including, but not limited to, street paving and curbs, storm and sanitary sewers, and other utilities;

(d) Warrant shall mean an investment security under Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code in the form of a short-term interest-bearing order payable on a specified date issued by the board of trustees or administrator of a sanitary and improvement district to be paid from funds expected to be received in the future, including, but not limited to, property tax collections, special assessment collections, and proceeds of sale of general obligation bonds.

The first import of the holder defendants' demurrers is that even if the facts are as the district alleges, its obligation to them on the warrants in their hands is unaffected; in short, that the district has no defense to its obligation to pay on the warrants in the holder defendants' hands. Our first task, then, is to examine the character of the subject warrants.

Sanitary and improvement district...