Weyh v. Gottsch
303 Neb. 280
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Weyh and Gottsch had an oral 2004 agreement to farm together, share net profits 50/50, operate on a running-account basis, and “settle up” when the operation ended; no written contract existed.
- The operation ran through the 2014 harvest; when Gottsch ended the enterprise in 2014, a final accounting was prepared by his bookkeeper allocating large sums to rent paid to Gottsch and wages to an employee, Philip Kollars, which Weyh disputed.
- Weyh sued in December 2014 asserting breach of contract and related claims, seeking half the operation’s profits and prejudgment interest; Gottsch admitted nonpayment but alleged accounting issues and raised statute-of‑limitations defenses.
- The district court found Weyh’s breach claim accrued when the operation ended in late 2014, excluded rent to Gottsch and Kollars’ wages as farm expenses, awarded damages of $1,214,056.73, and granted prejudgment interest under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-104 at 12% (amount later contested).
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed (1) accrual/timeliness, (2) whether the contested expenses were part of the oral agreement, and (3) whether prejudgment interest may be awarded under § 45-104 independent of § 45-103.02 and whether the calculation was correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual / statute of limitations | Weyh: claim accrued when operation ended in late 2014; suit filed within 4-year limit. | Gottsch: breaches occurred earlier (e.g., 2006 or 2008), so claim is time barred. | Court: accrual occurred when operation ended and settling was demanded in 2014; claim timely. |
| Rent to Gottsch as farm expense | Weyh: parties never agreed rent to Gottsch would be charged; course of conduct shows no agreement. | Gottsch: parties agreed rent would be a farm expense and he had been charging it. | Court: factual credibility to Weyh; no credible evidence of agreement to charge rent; rent excluded. |
| Kollars’ wages expensed to farm | Weyh: Kollars’ time was not agreed to be charged to the farm; allocation lacked proof. | Gottsch: some Kollars’ work benefited farm and was appropriately allocated. | Court: insufficient proof and contradictory bookkeeping; wages excluded as farm expense. |
| Prejudgment interest: statutory basis and calculation | Weyh: §§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 are independent; where § 45-104 category fits, prejudgment interest may be awarded without proving the claim is liquidated. | Gottsch: § 45-103.02 is exclusive or § 45-104 requires also proving claim is liquidated under § 45-103.02(2); district court miscalculated amount. | Court: §§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 are alternate, independent statutes; § 45-104 applies here (money received for another and retained); awarded prejudgment interest but recalculated amount and accrual period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Donut Holdings v. Risberg, 294 Neb. 861 (Neb. 2016) (bench-trial factual-findings standard and deference)
- Knox v. Cook, 233 Neb. 387 (Neb. 1989) (construed § 45-103.02 broadly; significant for legislative response)
- Cheloha v. Cheloha, 255 Neb. 32 (Neb. 1998) (construction of § 45-104 category and prejudgment interest principles)
- Brook Valley Ltd. Part. v. Mutual of Omaha Bank, 285 Neb. 157 (Neb. 2013) (discussion of interaction between §§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 in later jurisprudence)