Clason v. LOL Investments
957 N.W.2d 877
Neb.2021Background
- Clason owned farm land subject to agricultural loans secured by a deed of trust assigned to LOL Investments; he defaulted and a trustee’s sale conveyed the property to Producers Livestock Credit Corporation (PLCC).
- Clason refused to vacate; PLCC filed forcible entry and detainer in county court while Clason filed a district-court action to quiet title in his name.
- PLCC answered and counterclaimed asserting quiet title in PLCC plus claims for ejectment, unjust enrichment (rent/taxes), and attorney fees for frivolous suit under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-824.
- PLCC moved for partial summary judgment on title; LOL moved to dismiss Clason’s claims against it. The district court entered an order titled “Judgment and Decree Quieting Title” quieting title in PLCC and dismissing Clason’s complaint.
- Clason appealed; the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because other counterclaims remained unresolved and the district court did not certify the partial judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of August 12 order | August 12 order is final and appealable as an order affecting a substantial right under § 25-1902 (and comparable to final title rulings). | § 25-1315 bars appeals of orders adjudicating fewer than all claims/parties unless the trial court expressly directs entry of final judgment and determines no just reason for delay. | Order not appealable: § 25-1315 applies and the order lacked the required express certification. |
| Applicability of partition-case precedent (Peterson) | Peterson and similar partition cases permit appeal of a title determination while other partition issues remain. The same reasoning should apply to a quiet title determination. | Partition cases are unique two-stage actions; this is a quiet title action with separate counterclaims (ejectment, unjust enrichment) so Peterson does not control. | Partition precedent inapplicable; quiet title actions are not treated like two-stage partition actions for § 25-1315 purposes. |
| Effect of pending attorney-fees request under § 25-824 | (Implicit) Title order is final even if attorney-fees claim exists. | A pre-judgment motion/request for attorney fees under § 25-824 prevents finality until ruled on; lack of ruling can independently make the order nonappealable. | If the § 25-824 request was not resolved, that would independently prevent finality; here lack of explicit ruling could be an additional reason the order was not appealable. |
Key Cases Cited
- TDP Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, 307 Neb. 795, 950 N.W.2d 640 (2020) (§ 25-1315 requires express certification before appeal of partial final orders when multiple claims/parties exist)
- Guardian Tax Partners v. Skrupa Invest. Co., 295 Neb. 639, 889 N.W.2d 825 (2017) (partition actions are unique two-stage proceedings; § 25-1315 not implicated where action is a single cause of action and title claims of all parties are resolved)
- Peterson v. Damoude, 95 Neb. 469, 145 N.W. 847 (1914) (partition jurisprudence allowing separate appeal of title determination in certain partition cases)
- Olsen v. Olsen, 248 Neb. 393, 534 N.W.2d 762 (1995) (quiet title order is interlocutory/nonappealable when accounting/damages remain pending)
- Wicker v. Waldemath, 238 Neb. 515, 471 N.W.2d 731 (1991) (title determination in ejectment not final where rents and profits remain unresolved)
- Salkin v. Jacobsen, 263 Neb. 521, 641 N.W.2d 356 (2002) (prejudgment motion for attorney fees under statutory provision prevents judgment from being final and appealable)