Rafert v. Meyer
298 Neb. 461
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jlee Rafert purchased life insurance, named an irrevocable trust (with Robert J. Meyer as trustee) as owner; insurance agent Gerald C. Bryce handled premium collections.
- Renewal premium notices were mailed to a South Dakota address Meyer listed but did not monitor; Bryce stole premium checks Rafert gave him and the policies lapsed.
- Rafert and her children sued Meyer for breach of fiduciary duty seeking return of premiums; Meyer asserted third-party claims against Bryce, Paradigm Financial Services, and Ag/Insurance Services for contribution/indemnity.
- The district court bifurcated proceedings: appellants’ suit against Meyer went to a jury, which returned a verdict for appellants (~$60,000); the court entered judgment on November 9, 2016.
- The court then certified that November judgment as final under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) (no just reason for delay) even though Meyer’s third-party claims remained; appellants appealed the certified judgment.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether certification under § 25-1315(1) was appropriate and whether it created an appealable final order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order was appealable as a final order under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) | Rafert: certification proper because adjudication of remaining third-party claims won’t affect issues on appeal and review won’t be duplicated | Meyer/third-party defendants: certification unnecessary; third-party claims are factually and legally related and could affect rights | Court held certification was an abuse of discretion; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court made adequate findings to justify certification | Rafert: statutory language and court statements sufficient | Opponents: court failed to make specific findings showing unusual need for immediate appeal | Court held the district court failed to make the specific findings explaining why interlocutory review was necessary |
| Whether interrelationship between main claim and third-party claims justified denying certification | Rafert: claims separable; contribution claim depends on final amount but issues distinct | Meyer: third-party claims arise from same facts and are legally overlapping, so fragmentation should be avoided | Court held claims were factually and legally related; certification fragmented the case improperly |
| Whether delay in trying third-party claims justified early appeal | Rafert: delay (3–4 months) and long litigation history warrant certification | Opponents: delay was not an extraordinary hardship or sufficient to justify certification | Court held mere delay and speculative efficiency did not justify certification under § 25-1315(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Guardian Tax Partners v. Skrupa Invest. Co., 295 Neb. 639 (2017) (jurisdictional principles and final-order timing)
- Castellar Partners v. AMP Limited, 291 Neb. 163 (2015) (certification under § 25-1315(1) should be reserved for unusual cases and requires findings)
- Cerny v. Todco Barricade Co., 273 Neb. 800 (2007) (factors trial courts should weigh before certifying partial final judgments)
- AgriStor Credit Corp. v. Radtke, 218 Neb. 386 (1984) (purpose and policy of third-party practice to avoid multiplicity of suits)