In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Maronica B., 992 N.W.2d 457

In April 2017 Maronica B. was severely injured when the car driven by her cousin, Davion Brewer, collided with a schoolbus operated by Student Transportation of Nebraska.
Maronica’s mother, Macosha Brewer, was appointed conservator and in 2017 petitioned the Douglas County Court to approve a settlement and release in favor of Davion and his insurer for policy limits, with net proceeds placed in a conservatorship account.
The county court authorized the settlement after a hearing and ordered the net proceeds placed for Maronica’s benefit.
Ronald Branch, Maronica’s father and successor conservator, filed a 2021 motion in the conservatorship proceeding seeking to vacate nunc pro tunc and rescind the 2017 settlement, alleging the release could limit recovery against nonsettling tortfeasors (e.g., Student Transportation).
The county court denied the motion, finding no authority to rescind the prior settlement; Branch appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the motion sought equitable rescission outside the county court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in the conservatorship matter, ruled the statutes relied on did not confer general equity power on county courts, vacated the county court’s order, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the county court have subject-matter jurisdiction in the conservatorship to rescind a 2017 tort settlement?	Conservator (Branch): county court may rescind the settlement under equitable principles to protect the ward’s future recovery.	Appellees/County: the request is an equitable action (rescission) unrelated to conservatorship powers, so county court lacks jurisdiction.	Held: The motion was equitable rescission outside the county court’s conservatorship jurisdiction; county court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Do statutes permitting county courts to vacate or modify their orders (e.g., § 25-2720.01; § 25-2001(2)) confer general equity jurisdiction to county courts to rescind contracts?	Conservator: those statutes allow county courts to act "in the same manner as" district courts and thus to exercise equity jurisdiction to vacate orders.	Appellees/State: the statutes do not create independent equity jurisdiction for county courts; they merely allow post-term vacatur procedures but do not import district court equity power.	Held: The statutes do not confer general equity jurisdiction on county courts; they do not authorize rescission here.

In re Estate of Adelung, 306 Neb. 646 (2020) (describing subject-matter jurisdiction and de novo review of legal questions).
In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661 (2013) (county courts may apply equitable principles only within their statutory jurisdiction).
In re Claims Against Pierce Elevator, 291 Neb. 798 (2015) (rescission and similar relief sound in equity).
Gerber v. P & L Finance Co., 301 Neb. 463 (2018) (courts look to a pleading’s substance rather than its caption).
Gonzalez v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 282 Neb. 47 (2011) (releases may be voided when fraud, deceit, oppression, or unconscionability taint the transaction).
Miller v. Janecek, 210 Neb. 316 (1982) (not all protective actions by a conservator must be brought in the county court).