Schaaf v. Schaaf

• Decision Date: 22 July 2022
• Docket Number: S-21-251.
• Citation: 312 Neb. 1,978 N.W.2d 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

312 Neb. 1

978 N.W.2d 1

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.

No. S-21-251.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed July 22, 2022

Bradley D. Holbrook and Elizabeth J. Klingelhoefer, of Jacobsen, Orr, Lindstrom & Holbrook, P.C., L.L.O., Kearney, for appellants.

Lyle Joseph Koenig, of Koenig Law Firm, for appellees.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Funke, J.

INTRODUCTION

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.

BACKGROUND

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.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Appellants assign, restated and consolidated, that the district court erred in dismissing their case based on their previously filed voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

ANALYSIS

JURISDICTION

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, is a final order. A substantial right is an essential legal right, which includes those legal rights that a party is entitled to enforce or defend.⁷ 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.⁸ 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.⁹

Here, the district court's March 2021 order of dismissal completely disposed of the subject matter of the litigation and, as such, was a final, appealable order over which we have jurisdiction.

§ 25-601

Having determined that we have jurisdiction over this appeal, we move to the merits of the case. Appellants argue that the district court erred in dismissing their case because, at the time they filed their voluntary dismissal, a final submission had occurred, which divested Appellants of their statutory ability to voluntarily dismiss their case under § 25-601. We agree.

The ability of a plaintiff to dismiss his or her claim(s) without prejudice is codified in § 25-601 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-602 (Cum. Supp. 2020). Generally, under these statutes, a plaintiff has the right to dismiss an action without prejudice before final submission of the case, subject to compliance with conditions precedent as may be imposed by the court.¹⁰ We have stated that the statutory right to voluntary dismissal under §§ 25-601 and 25-602 is not a matter of judicial grace or discretion, but neither is it absolute or without limitation.¹¹ After a final submission, dismissal without prejudice requires leave of court.¹² 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.¹³

In support of their argument that a ruling on a motion for summary judgment is a final submission which deprives a party from being able to voluntarily dismiss their case, Appellants direct us to our recent decision in Millard Gutter Co. v. American Family Ins. Co.¹⁴ In Millard Gutter Co. , the defendant prevailed on summary judgment regarding three of the plaintiff's four claims. Then, on the morning of trial, the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal under § 25-601. The voluntary dismissal was not styled as a motion, but the district court held a hearing to determine the effect of the filing. Ultimately, the court entered a judgment that dismissed without prejudice the claim set for trial, made final the prior summary judgments entered in favor of the defendant, and taxed certain costs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that once it filed the voluntary dismissal, the court's jurisdiction over the case terminated and the court lacked the ability to tax costs. The district court rejected the plaintiff's argument, finding that there was a final submission that precluded voluntary dismissal under § 25-601 and that there was a setoff that precluded voluntary dismissal under § 25-602.

On appeal, we held in Millard Gutter Co. that a summary judgment motion can be a final submission that will prevent voluntary dismissal under § 25-601. We also found that due to the granting of the appellee's motion for partial summary judgment, there was a final submission regarding some, but not all, of the appellant's claims in the case. As such, because the summary judgments in favor of the appellee were the product of final submissions that had neither been revised nor set aside, we concluded that the appellant lacked the statutory authority under § 25-601 to voluntarily dismiss those claims.

As described by one commentator, our holding in Millard Gutter Co. was the correct conclusion because a "plaintiff should not be allowed to dismiss claims without prejudice after the claims have been rejected. Otherwise, the plaintiff could avoid an...