Clason v. LOL Investments
308 Neb. 904
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Clason owned farm real estate secured by an agricultural deed of trust; after default and a trustee’s sale, Producers Livestock Credit Corporation (PLCC) purchased the property.
- Clason refused to vacate; PLCC filed forcible entry and detainer in county court while Clason filed a district-court quiet-title action challenging the trustee’s sale.
- PLCC answered and counterclaimed asserting (1) quiet title in PLCC, (2) ejectment, (3) unjust enrichment (rent/taxes), and (4) attorney fees as frivolous-action sanctions.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment quieting title in PLCC and dismissed Clason’s complaint; other counterclaims remained pending.
- Clason appealed; the Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the title ruling was not appealable absent § 25-1315 certification (or full disposition).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of district court’s order quieting title | Clason: the order affects a substantial right and is appealable as a final order under § 25-1902 and by analogy to partition-title precedents | PLCC: § 25-1315 bars appeal when multiple claims exist and the court did not expressly certify lack of delay | Held: Not appealable under § 25-1315 because other counterclaims remained and the court did not expressly determine "no just reason for delay" and direct entry of judgment |
| Applicability of partition-title rule (Peterson line) | Clason: partition cases allow appeal of title determinations even if other partition issues remain; same reasoning should apply to a quiet-title ruling | PLCC: This is not a partition action; partition jurisprudence is limited to the unique two-stage partition structure and does not override § 25-1315 | Held: Partition precedents do not apply; quiet-title actions lack the unique partition structure that makes early title determinations separately appealable |
| Effect of pending attorney-fee sanction request on finality | Clason: order labeled a "judgment" should be appealable | PLCC: fee request under § 25-824 was asserted and, if unresolved, prevents finality | Held: A pending or unresolved § 25-824 fee request can prevent finality; absence of explicit ruling on fees is an independent reason the title order may be nonappealable |
Key Cases Cited
- TDP Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, 307 Neb. 795, 950 N.W.2d 640 (2020) (explains § 25-1315 prerequisites for appealing partial judgments).
- Guardian Tax Partners v. Skrupa Invest. Co., 295 Neb. 639, 889 N.W.2d 825 (2017) (describes partition actions’ unique two-stage structure and when title determinations are appealable).
- Peterson v. Damoude, 95 Neb. 469, 145 N.W. 847 (1914) (early partition precedent recognizing appealability of title determinations in certain partition cases).
- Salkin v. Jacobsen, 263 Neb. 521, 641 N.W.2d 356 (2002) (holding that a judgment is not final and appealable while a pre-judgment § 25-824 attorney-fee motion remains unresolved).
- Olsen v. Olsen, 248 Neb. 393, 534 N.W.2d 762 (1995) (title determination in non-partition context held interlocutory when accounting/damages remained).
- Wicker v. Waldemath, 238 Neb. 515, 471 N.W.2d 731 (1991) (title ruling in ejectment not final when rents/profits unresolved).