In re Estate of Evertson
295 Neb. 301
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Bruce Evertson died in a work-related motor vehicle accident; his widow Darla received ongoing workers’ compensation benefits from Travelers.
- A county court probate proceeding was opened solely to settle the Estate’s wrongful-death claim and distribute proceeds to statutory beneficiaries.
- The Estate settled with the third-party tortfeasor’s insurer; Darla was allocated $250,000 of the settlement.
- Travelers asserted a subrogation lien for workers’ compensation payments and funeral expenses and sought a share of Darla’s settlement (including a "future credit" against benefits it must continue to pay).
- The county court held a hearing, awarded Travelers $0 from Darla’s share and denied any future credit; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to decide whether the county court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Travelers’ subrogation claim and related future-credit issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide employer/insurer subrogation disputes over third-party recoveries | Travelers: § 48-118 et seq. requires such subrogation matters be resolved in district court; county court lacks statutory grant | Estate: County court’s authority under § 30-810 to approve and distribute wrongful-death settlements includes resolving liens and distribution disputes | County court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over fair/equitable distribution of proceeds subject to subrogation |
| Whether § 48-118’s phrase “the court” includes county courts | Travelers: read § 48-118.01 references to district court in pari materia, so “the court” means district court | Estate: county court’s distribution role under § 30-810 permits resolving lien issues in probate distribution | Court: interpret statutes together; where § 48-118.01 expressly identifies district court, “the court” in § 48-118.04 refers to district court |
| Whether county court’s denial of future credit to Travelers was correct (substantive allocation) | Travelers: entitled to future credit against benefits owed even if Estate recovered first | Estate: Travelers not entitled to credit here; county court’s allocation was fair | Court: did not decide on the merits of future-credit allocation because lack of jurisdiction made county-court decision void; remanded to vacate county order |
| Whether Court of Appeals could adjudicate the appeal when lower court lacked jurisdiction | Travelers: appellate review proper on errors below; alternative arguments raised | Estate: Court of Appeals affirmed county court decision on merits | Court: when trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, appellate court likewise lacks jurisdiction to decide merits; Court of Appeals’ judgment vacated and remanded with directions to vacate county order |
Key Cases Cited
- Village at North Platte v. Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Equal., 292 Neb. 533 (statutory interpretation and questions of law)
- Miller v. M.F.S. York/Stormor, 257 Neb. 100 (subrogation disputes must be resolved in court where underlying action was pending or in district court)
- Bacon v. DBI/SALA, 284 Neb. 579 (employer/insurer future-credit principles in wrongful-death recoveries)
- In re Estate of Panec, 291 Neb. 46 (limits on county court distribution authority under § 30-810)
- Hickman v. Southwest Dairy Suppliers, Inc., 194 Neb. 17 (beneficiaries have no vested right to wrongful-death proceeds until county-court distribution)
- Trew v. Trew, 252 Neb. 555 (appellate limitations where lower court lacks jurisdiction)
- Wright v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist., 280 Neb. 941 (appeal jurisdiction principles)
- Conroy v. Keith Cty. Bd. of Equal., 288 Neb. 196 (power to vacate void orders when jurisdictional defects exist)