Schaaf v. Schaaf
| Decision Date | 22 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-21-251 |
| Citation | 312 Neb. 1 |
| Parties | Daniel D. Schaaf and Ronald R. Schaaf, Copersonal Representatives of the Estate of Lorene M. Schaaf, appellants, v. Tommy B. Schaaf and Susan M. Schaaf, appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. 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 lower court's decision.
2. Motions to Vacate: Time: Appeal and Error. The decision to vacate an order any time during the term in which the judgment is rendered is within the discretion of the court such a decision will be reversed only if it is shown that the district court abused its discretion.
3. Judgments: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters submitted for disposition.
4. Statutes: Appeal and Error. 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.
5. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.
6. Dismissal and Nonsuit: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Generally, an order of dismissal is a final, appealable order.
7. Final Orders. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902(1)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2020), an order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment, is a final order.
8. Final Orders: Words and Phrases. A substantial right is an essential legal right, which includes those legal rights that a party is entitled to enforce or defend.
9. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A substantial right is affected if an order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a claim or defense that was available to an appellant before the order from which an appeal is taken.
10. Final Orders. An order that completely disposes of the subject matter of the litigation in an action or proceeding both is final and affects a substantial right because it conclusively determines a claim or defense.
11. Dismissal and Nonsuit. Generally, under Neb. Rev. Stat §§ 25-601(1) (Reissue 2016) and 25-602 (Cum. Supp 2020), a plaintiff has the right to dismiss an action without prejudice before final submission of the case.
12. __ . After a final submission, dismissal without prejudice requires leave of court. 13. Actions. A final submission of an action contemplates submission upon both law and facts and it only exists when nothing remains to be done to render it complete.
14. Summary Judgment: Dismissal and Nonsuit. A summary judgment motion can be a final submission that will prevent voluntary dismissal under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-601 (Reissue 2016).
15. Dismissal and Nonsuit. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-602 (Cum. Supp. 2020), a plaintiff loses the right to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice when a counterclaim or setoff has been filed by the opposing party.
16. Dismissal and Nonsuit: Jurisdiction. An order of dismissal or dismissal by operation of law divests a court of jurisdiction to take any further action in the matter.
17. Dismissal and Nonsuit. When a case is voluntarily dismissed by a party, the controversy between the parties upon which a trial court may act ends.
18. Dismissal and Nonsuit: Jurisdiction: Pleadings: Motions to Vacate. A court treats a motion to reinstate a case after an order of dismissal as a motion to vacate the order, and a court generally has jurisdiction over a motion to vacate an order of dismissal and reinstate a case.
Appeal from the District Court for Holt County: Mark D. Kozisek, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Bradley D. Holbrook and Elizabeth J. Klingelhoefer, of Jacobsen, Orr, Lindstrom & Holbrook, P.C., L.L.O., for appellants.
Lyle Joseph Koenig, of Koenig Law Firm, for appellees.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Appellants appeal from a dismissal entered by the district court upon the court's determination that the case had been improperly reinstated after they voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the findings of the district court and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Daniel D. Schaaf and Ronald R. Schaaf (Appellants) are copersonal representatives for the estate of their mother, Lorene M. Schaaf. In February 2017, Appellants filed a complaint against their brother, Tommy B. Schaaf, and his wife, Susan M. Schaaf (Appellees), which asserted two counts of undue influence and one count of fraud in the inducement regarding the devise of certain real estate by Lorene.
Appellees filed an amended answer that affirmatively alleged a codicil executed by Lorene was the product of undue influence. Appellees' amended answer also requested that the court award them "their costs, including attorney fees, and any other relief that is just."
In May 2018, Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court dismissed one count of fraud in the inducement with prejudice, but overruled Appellees' motion as to the remaining counts.
On August 15, 2018, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-601 (Reissue 2016), Appellants filed a voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. Appellees did not file an objection to the voluntary dismissal. On August 20, the trial court issued a journal entry effectively treating Appellants' dismissal as a motion dismissing without prejudice. The court then granted the motion and ordered the complaint be dismissed without prejudice, with both Appellants and Appellees to pay their own costs.
Shortly after Appellants filed their dismissal, they commenced a new action in the county court for Holt County, where they asserted two counts of undue influence and one count of fraud in the inducement regarding the same subject matter. The county court subsequently determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and dismissed the complaint.
In February 2019, Appellants returned to the district court and filed a motion to vacate/reinstate, requesting that the district court vacate its August 2018 journal entry and reinstate the case pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(1) (Reissue 2016). Over Appellees' objection, the court sustained the motion to vacate/reinstate, noting that the pleadings suggested that Appellants had intended to pursue the same course of litigation in the county court and that Appellees would "derive great benefit by not allowing reinstatement of the case." In November 2020, Appellees filed an amended motion for summary judgment. The motion was heard in December 2020.
In March 2021, rather than ruling on Appellees' amended motion for summary judgment, the district court entered an order dismissing Appellants' case. The court reasoned that under § 25-601, a plaintiff may dismiss an action before final submission of the case to the court or jury and that therefore, Appellants did not need permission or an order from the court before the voluntary dismissal became effective. The court therefore determined that its August 2018 journal entry granting dismissal without prejudice was "a mere gratuity." As a result, the court found that Appellants' voluntary dismissal effectively ended the litigation as soon as it was filed and that any subsequent order from the court purporting to dismiss or reinstate the case was a nullity. The court stated that Appellants must commence a new civil action by filing a petition or complaint because neither the purported reinstatement by the court nor the filing of the amended complaint constituted the filing of a new lawsuit. Thus, the court concluded the case "[stood] dismissed pursuant to [Appellants'] voluntary dismissal." Appellants appeal.
Appellants assign, restated and consolidated, that the district court erred in dismissing their case based on their previously filed voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
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 lower court's decision.[1]
The decision to vacate an order any time during the term in which the judgment is rendered is within the discretion of the court; such a decision will be reversed only if it is shown that the district court abused its discretion.[2] A judicial abuse of discretion exists when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters submitted for disposition.[3]
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.[4]
Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.[5] Generally, an order of dismissal is a final, appealable order.[6]
Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902(1)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2020), an order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment,...
To continue reading
Request your trial