Fisher v. Heirs & Devisees of T.D. Lovercheck
291 Neb. 9
| Neb. | 2015Background
- In 1986 David and Pamela Fisher acquired 400 acres in Banner County as joint tenants; in 2001 they quitclaimed the surface to themselves as trustees of the David and Pamela Fisher Living Trust.
- US Bank, as trustee of the L.T. Lovercheck Trust, claimed a 1/4 undivided mineral interest in the property; the mineral estate was inactive (no drilling, no leases).
- March 4, 2013: the Fishers sued to terminate severed mineral interests, suing as “David Fisher and Pamela W. Fisher, Husband and Wife.”
- May 2, 2013: US Bank answered asserting the Fishers were not real parties in interest (trustees are) and recorded a verified claim of mineral interest; US Bank recorded again May 29.
- June 2013: the Fishers amended their complaint to add themselves as trustees; US Bank argued the amendment did not relate back and moved for summary judgment. The district court agreed and entered summary judgment for US Bank.
- Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding the amended complaint joined the real parties in interest and therefore related back under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-301, entitling the Fishers to summary judgment terminating US Bank’s severed mineral interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amendment joining real parties in interest relates back to the original complaint | Amendment relates back under § 25-301 because joinder/substitution of the real party "shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced by the real party in interest" | § 25-301 does not create relation back for dormant mineral claims; statutes creating forfeiture-like rights should be strictly construed and relation back would be inequitable | Held: Yes. § 25-301’s plain language requires that joinder/substitution of the real party in interest has the same effect as if the action had been commenced by that party, so the amendment relates back. |
| Whether relation back is limited by notice/prejudice or other conditions | Not required under § 25-301; Legislature omitted such limits and used mandatory language | Relation back should be conditioned on notice/prejudice or an "understandable" mistake to protect defendants | Held: No additional conditions apply. § 25-301 contains no notice/prejudice requirement and is mandatory. |
| Whether dormant-mineral statutes (23-year rule) preclude relation back because they are substantive | Relation back under § 25-301 applies and can affect timing for dormant-mineral rules | The 23-year period is part of the substantive claim, so relation back cannot be used to avoid its effect | Held: § 25-301 contains no limitation; relation back applies to the 23-year dormant-mineral period. |
| Remedy when amendment relates back and defendant recorded claim after original complaint | Fishers entitled to summary judgment because US Bank recorded after original complaint and made no other public exercise of ownership | US Bank argued dismissal or protection of its claim because it recorded before amendment | Held: Fishers entitled to summary judgment; US Bank failed to publicly exercise ownership within the 23 years and recorded only after the original complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbs Cattle Co. v. Bixler, 285 Neb. 952 (Neb. 2013) (discusses interpretation of dormant mineral statutes and relation-back issues)
- DMK Biodiesel v. McCoy, 290 Neb. 286 (Neb. 2015) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Manon v. Orr, 289 Neb. 484 (Neb. 2014) (standing and the real-party-in-interest inquiry)
- Polk County v. Wombacher, 229 Neb. 239 (Neb. 1988) (identifying who is the real party in interest)
- Esposito v. U.S., 368 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2004) (federal-rule background on Rule 17 and relation-back principles)