Rafert v. Meyer
298 Neb. 461
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jlee Rafert purchased life insurance and named an irrevocable trust (created in 2009) as policy owner; Robert J. Meyer served as trustee and signed the insurance applications listing a South Dakota address he did not monitor.
- Insurance renewal notices were sent to the South Dakota address; Rafert paid renewal checks (2009–2012) to agent Gerald C. Bryce, who stole the funds and allowed the policies to lapse.
- Rafert and her children sued Meyer for breach of fiduciary duty seeking return of premiums; Meyer defended that Bryce, Paradigm, and Ag were the proximate cause and filed a third-party complaint for contribution/indemnity.
- The district court bifurcated proceedings: plaintiffs tried and won a jury verdict against Meyer (judgment entered November 9, 2016). Meyer’s third-party claims remained pending.
- The district court certified the November 2016 judgment as final under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) (no just reason for delay); appellants appealed immediately.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether certification was proper and whether it had appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly certified a partial final judgment under § 25-1315(1) | Certification appropriate because third-party trial delay would be months and appellate review of the fiduciary- duty judgment should proceed now | Certification appropriate to obtain early review and possibly moot third-party trial; issues on appeal differ from third-party issues | Court held certification was an abuse of discretion and vacated the certification; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the adjudicated and remaining claims are sufficiently separable to warrant immediate appeal | Claims are distinct (breach vs. contribution) and appellate review won’t be duplicated | Third-party claim depends on outcome of primary claim; factual and legal overlap exists | Court held claims are interrelated (third-party practice transfers liability) and separability was not shown |
| Whether the district court provided sufficient findings justifying certification | Plaintiffs argued statute language and hearing comments suffice | Defendant cited court’s concern about delay as justification | Court found mere statutory language and brief comments insufficient; specific findings are ordinarily required |
| Whether § 25-1315(1) should be used when future proceedings might moot or duplicate issues | Plaintiffs: early appeal avoids delay and duplication | Defendants: statute is not to be used to multiply appeals on speculative grounds | Court emphasized § 25-1315(1) is for unusual cases; denying certification here was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Castellar Partners v. AMP Limited, 291 Neb. 163, 864 N.W.2d 391 (Neb. 2015) (certification under § 25-1315(1) reserved for unusual cases; trial court should make specific findings)
- Cerny v. Todco Barricade Co., 273 Neb. 800, 733 N.W.2d 877 (Neb. 2007) (factors for considering certification and caution against fragmentation of related claims)
- AgriStor Credit Corp. v. Radtke, 218 Neb. 386, 356 N.W.2d 856 (Neb. 1984) (purpose and policy of third-party practice to avoid multiplicity of suits)
- Guardian Tax Partners v. Skrupa Invest. Co., 295 Neb. 639, 889 N.W.2d 825 (Neb. 2017) (procedural prerequisites for appellate jurisdiction and appeal timing)