Panhandle Collections v. Singh
28 Neb. Ct. App. 924
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- City of Scottsbluff provided sewer service to property on Highland Road owned by Cheema Investments, LLC; Kuldip Singh is a principal of Cheema.
- City assigned unpaid sewer charges to Panhandle Collections, Inc., which sued Singh individually to collect the debt.
- Panhandle introduced a service-startup card bearing a signature it attributed to Singh; Singh denied signing and produced his driver’s license signature for comparison.
- Panhandle amended its complaint to allege Cheema was the record owner but never served or joined Cheema; county court tried the case and entered judgment against Singh for $408.40.
- District court affirmed the county court; the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, holding the county court lacked jurisdiction for failing to join an indispensable party and remanded to add Cheema.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failing to join Cheema (record owner) deprived the county court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Panhandle: Singh requested services; municipal ordinance allows collection from the requester or the owner, so Singh could be sued alone | Singh: Cheema, as owner and lienholder, is an indispensable party; its absence is a jurisdictional defect | Court: Cheema was indispensable; absence deprived county court of jurisdiction; case remanded to add Cheema |
| Whether the evidence that Singh requested service established personal liability | Panhandle: Service card and court finding show Singh requested service; ordinance supports collection from the requester | Singh: Denied signing; offered driver’s license signature and pointed to property ownership by Cheema | Court: Did not reach merits because jurisdictional defect was dispositive; lower judgments vacated and remanded |
| Whether failure to join or serve Cheema was waived by Singh's pretrial conduct | Panhandle: Singh did not move to continue or file a cross-claim before trial | Singh: Indispensable-party defect cannot be waived; it is jurisdictional | Court: Indispensable-party absence cannot be waived; jurisdictional defect requires reversal and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. Drew's LLC, 290 Neb. 508 (sets standard of review for county-court appeals)
- Midwest Renewable Energy v. American Engr. Testing, 296 Neb. 73 (distinguishes necessary vs. indispensable parties under §25-323)
- In re Trust Created by Augustin, 27 Neb. App. 593 (absence of indispensable party deprives court of subject-matter jurisdiction and requires remand)