Kotrous v. Zerbe
287 Neb. 1033
| Neb. | 2014Background
- Kotrous filed a complaint against Zerbe, Sukups, Camden, and two agricultural lenders seeking payment for a boundary fence Kotrous built.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing exclusive county-court jurisdiction over fence contribution claims under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 34-112.02.
- Kotrous alleged an agreement with the Sukups to construct a new division fence and share the costs; Kotrous supplied materials and labor; Sukups did not pay and later sold land to Zerbe and Camden.
- Zerbe and Camden obtained deeds of trust from AgriBank FCB and Farm Credit Services of America; Kotrous sought damages from all defendants.
- The district court’s dismissal was based on fence-law jurisdiction; Kotrous contends the district court has jurisdiction over breach-of-contract and related common-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint | Kotrous argues district court can hear breach-of-contract and related claims. | Zerbe/Camden contend fence-law jurisdiction confines such actions to county court. | District court has jurisdiction over breach-of-contract claims; fence-law contributions are limited to county court. |
| Whether breach-of-contract is within district court jurisdiction | Kotrous pleads breach of contract as a common-law action. | Fence-law provisions restrict contribution actions to county court but do not bar district court breach-of-contract claims. | Breach-of-contract claims fall within district court jurisdiction. |
| Effect of fence law on district court jurisdiction | Kotrous asserts district court can hear common-law and quasi-contract claims; fence-law creates a county-court remedy only for contribution. | Fence-law jurisdiction is exclusive to county courts for contribution related to division fences. | District court retains concurrent jurisdiction over common-law claims; contribution claims under fence law go to county court. |
| Adequacy of Kotrous's pleadings for breach of contract | Complaint provides a short, plain statement alleging promise, breach, damages, and completion. | Not explicitly at issue; pleadings meet notice pleading requirements. | Complaint adequately pleads breach of contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trumble v. Sarpy County Board, 283 Neb. 486 (2012) (common-law jurisdiction cannot be amended away by statute)
- Schweitzer v. American Nat. Red Cross, 256 Neb. 350 (1999) (limits on legislative expansion of jurisdiction)
- State, ex rel. Wright, v. Barney, 133 Neb. 676 (1937) (historical context of jurisdictional concepts)
- Iodence v. Potmesil, 239 Neb. 387 (1991) (foundation for common-law actions and jurisdiction)
- Tilt-Up Concrete v. Star City/Federal, 261 Neb. 64 (2001) (authority on concurrent jurisdiction over certain actions)
- Production Credit Assn. v. Eldin Haussermann Farms, 247 Neb. 538 (1995) (pleading standards and remedies in common-law actions)
- City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Nebraska, Inc., 282 Neb. 848 (2011) (limits on jurisdiction and statutory interpretation)