Young v. Govier & Milone
286 Neb. 224
| Neb. | 2013Background
- First dissolution: district court approved postmarital agreement (PMA) and amended PMA (APMA); dismissed Young’s declaratory judgment claim with prejudice; court found jurisdiction under Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act and entered final judgment on merits.
- Second dissolution: Young, represented by appellees, pursued dissolution; Davis asserted PMA/APMA controlled alimony and property distribution and that Young was barred by res judicata/judicial estoppel; district court initially held PMA/APMA unenforceable but later reversed to say the April 2002 ruling was res judicata.
- Professional negligence action: Young alleged appellees negligently advised settlement and charged excessive fees; district court found res judicata/judicial estoppel foreclosed proximate-causation claim; summary judgment denied on negligence but bound on causation.
- Case-within-a-case: the claim hinges on whether the settlement decision was product of attorney negligence; expert conflicts precluded summary judgment on negligence; otherwise, res judicata foreclosed relief.
- Appellate posture: Young appeals; court analyzes res judicata, declaratory judgments jurisdiction, and recusal rulings; ultimately affirms district court’s rulings.
- The court’s conclusion: PMA/APMA order in first dissolution was final on merits by competent court and binding in second dissolution under res judicata; negates proximate-cause findings; no reversible error in recusal rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusive effect of first dissolution order | Young contends order was not final/merits-based | Appellees rely on res judicata to bar relitigation | Affirmed: order had preclusive effect under res judicata |
| Validity of PMA/APMA as final judgments | Questioned enforceability due to alleged fraud/duress | Order approved them as valid, binding agreements | Affirmed: first judgment on the merits controls in subsequent action |
| Proximate cause in legal malpractice claim | Negligence by attorneys proximately caused her damages | Even with breach, res judicata prevented more favorable outcome | Affirmed: causation not shown due to preclusive effect |
| Recusal rulings | Judge should have recused due to prior appearances | Rulings did not show bias; not reversible | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellino v. McGrath North, 274 Neb. 130 (2007) (res judicata applicability in professional-negligence context)
- Kiplinger v. Nebraska Dept. of Nat. Resources, 282 Neb. 237 (2011) (preclusion and jurisdiction analysis in agency/state actions)
- Ryan v. Ryan, 257 Neb. 682 (1999) (collateral attack and jurisdiction prerequisites)
- DeVaux v. DeVaux, 245 Neb. 611 (1994) (consent-like judgments and res judicata effects)
- Radiology Servs. v. Hall, 279 Neb. 553 (2010) (expert testimony conflict and summary judgment standards)
- Huber v. Rohrig, 280 Neb. 868 (2010) (standard of care in legal malpractice; necessity of expert proof)
- Wolski v. Wandel, 275 Neb. 266 (2008) (summary judgment and genuine issue of material fact)
- Conley v. Brazer, 278 Neb. 508 (2009) (professional-negligence standard and fact questions)
- Smith v. Lincoln Meadows Homeowners Assn., 267 Neb. 849 (2004) (res judicata and final judgments on merits)
- Dorland v. Dorland, 175 Neb. 233 (1963) (declaratory judgment jurisdiction and validity)