In re Estate of Adelung, 980 N.W.2d 415

The Estate of Madeline Adelung sued Kent Adelung for an equitable accounting and the county court found Kent liable and awarded farm income to the Estate.
On the first appeal, this court concluded the statute of limitations barred recovery of a portion of the farm income, affirmed as modified, and remanded for recalculation of damages without the time‑barred amounts.
On remand the Estate sought prejudgment interest on the modified judgment; the county court declined, noting this court’s mandate did not mention prejudgment interest.
The Estate appealed the denial of prejudgment interest; Kent cross‑appealed that the Estate had not properly pled interest and thus had no substantive right to it.
The Supreme Court considered the interplay of the mandate/law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and pleading/notice requirements, and affirmed the county court because the Estate failed to plead or otherwise give Kent notice that prejudgment interest was sought prior to judgment.

Issue	Estate's Argument	Kent's Argument	Held
Whether prejudgment interest may be awarded on remand after this Court’s modified judgment	Estate argued prejudgment interest could be awarded on the modified judgment and was not foreclosed by the mandate	Kent argued the appellate mandate did not direct or permit awarding prejudgment interest on remand	Court declined to award interest — it did not rest on a strict mandate prohibition but instead denied relief because the Estate had not timely sought or given notice of interest prior to judgment
Whether failure to plead or otherwise put interest at issue precludes recovery	Estate relied on statutory authority for prejudgment interest and argued pleading formality should not bar statutory relief	Kent argued Estate failed to comply with Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6‑1108(a) and gave no notice, so interest was not recoverable	Court held Estate failed to plead or otherwise give Kent notice of prejudgment interest before judgment; noncompliance with pleading/notice rules justified denying interest

Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 (statutes §45‑103.02 and §45‑104 are alternate, independent routes to prejudgment interest)
In re Estate of Adelung, 306 Neb. 646 (prior appellate decision modifying judgment and remanding for recalculation due to statute of limitations)
AVG Partners I v. Genesis Health Clubs, 307 Neb. 47 (pleading rule §6‑1108(a) is not dispositive when entitlement to interest is statutory and the adverse party had notice and an opportunity to be heard)
Valley Cty. Sch. Dist. 88‑0005 v. Ericson State Bank, 18 Neb. App. 624 (discusses mandate/law‑of‑the‑case limits on relitigating interest and when postjudgment interest rate issues must be raised)
Albrecht v. Fettig, 27 Neb. App. 371 (failure to request interest in complaint implicates notice concerns under pleading rules)
County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 (statutory preconditions for prejudgment interest on unliquidated claims)