Labenz v. Labenz
291 Neb. 455
| Neb. | 2015Background
- 160-acre farm originally owned by Alois J. Labenz was deeded to Gary, Linda, and Lisa Labenz (with a life interest reserved by Aline M. Labenz, later extinguished). Gary held the land under an oral lease that expired Feb. 28, 2014.
- Gary filed a partition action on Jan. 23, 2014; Linda and Lisa responded and sought determination of possession.
- The parties stipulated (drafted by plaintiffs’ counsel Moyer) to sell the property at public auction; the stipulation assigned specific duties to Moyer (attend auction, prepare purchase agreement, hold earnest money, conduct closing, escrow purchase price) and stated net proceeds would be divided equally after deduction of expenses, attorney fees, and costs.
- Gary won the April 21, 2014 auction; sale closed for $1.29 million and proceeds were deposited in Moyer’s trust account.
- Moyer petitioned the court to confirm the sale and approve payment of costs/fees. The district court concluded the partition action effectively ended with the public auction, interpreted the stipulation to limit recoverable fees to those tied to duties in paragraph 5, and awarded Moyer $5,224. The Labenzes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Labenz) | Defendant's Argument (Moyer/Respondents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney fees are recoverable under partition statutes or equitable principles | Fees are recoverable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,108 and equitable doctrines (common fund) because the action began as partition | The sale by auction ended the partition process; no referee, no completed partition procedure authorizing statutory fees; no statute or uniform practice supports equitable fee recovery here | Court held fees not available under partition statute or equitable doctrines because the partition process was not completed and no statutory/uniform basis existed |
| Whether the stipulation allows recovery of all counsel fees (including hourly fees beyond defined duties) | Stipulation does not limit fees; Moyer is entitled to full fees earned on hourly basis | Stipulation ties recoverable fees to the specific services Moyer agreed to in paragraph 5 | Court read paragraphs together and held fees recoverable are limited to those related to duties set forth in the stipulation (paragraph 5) |
| Whether the district court erred by reading paragraphs 5 and 7 together to limit fees | Reading them together improperly narrows paragraph 7; paragraph 7’s fee language is broader | Contract interpretation requires construing the stipulation as a whole; drafter-entitled-to-construction-against rule applies | Court affirmed that paragraphs 5 and 7 should be read together and construed against the drafter, supporting the limitation |
| Whether the amount awarded ($5,224) was an abuse of discretion | Labenzes argued Moyer earned more on hourly calculation and should receive full amount | Award corresponds to services identified in paragraph 5; district court’s award was reasonable | Court held the fee award was not an abuse of discretion and the amount was appropriate relative to stipulated duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Channer v. Cuming, 270 Neb. 231 (partition action is equitable and reviewed de novo)
- Foote v. O’Neill Packing, 262 Neb. 467 (statutory authority for attorney fees in partition proceedings)
- In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661 (appellate standard for review of fee awards)
- Mabry v. Mudd, 132 Neb. 610 (historical recognition of fees in partition contexts)
- Harper v. Harper, 89 Neb. 269 (historical recognition of fees in partition contexts)
- Garza v. Garza, 288 Neb. 213 (contract interpretation principles)
- Hearst-Argyle Prop. v. Entrex Comm. Servs., 279 Neb. 468 (contract must be construed as a whole)
- McKinnis Roofing v. Hicks, 282 Neb. 34 (ambiguities construed against drafter)