Case Title: 132ND STREET LTD. v. Fellman

Citation: 245 Neb. 59, 511 N.W.2d 88

Docket Number: 

State: nebraska

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Date: 1994-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
511 N.W.2d 88 (1994) 245 Neb. 59 132ND STREET LTD., a Nebraska Limited Partnership, Appellee, v. Gary FELLMAN, doing business as Fellman Publications, Inc., Appellant. No. S-93-104. Supreme Court of Nebraska. January 28, 1994. Douglas E. Quinn, of McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C., Omaha, for appellant. *89 Jeffrey A. Silver, Omaha, for appellee. HASTINGS, C.J., BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, FAHRNBRUCH, and LANPHIER, JJ., and GRANT, J., Retired. BOSLAUGH, Justice. This is an action which originated in the Douglas County Court for rents due under a written lease agreement. The plaintiff is 132nd Street Ltd., a Nebraska limited partnership, and the defendant is Gary Fellman, doing business as Fellman Publications, Inc. The parties each filed motions for summary judgment. On October 27, 1992, the county court sustained the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and overruled the defendant's motion for summary judgment. On October 30, 1992, the defendant filed a motion for new trial, and that motion was denied on November 19, 1992. On December 8, 1992, the defendant filed in the district court a notice of appeal from the order denying his motion for new trial. Relying on Edward Frank Rozman Co. v. Keillor, 195 Neb. 587, 239 N.W.2d 779 (1976), the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the defendant's notice of appeal was untimely filed. On January 14, 1993, the district court granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal. On January 29, 1993, the defendant appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary affirmance pursuant to Neb.Ct.R. of Prac. 7 B(2) (rev.1992) for lack of jurisdiction. On June 4, 1993, the Court of Appeals sustained the plaintiff's motion and summarily affirmed the judgment. The defendant's petition for further review by this court was granted. The defendant asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary affirmance. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-2701 (Reissue 1989) provides: Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-2729 (Reissue 1989) provides the procedure for perfecting appeals from the county court. It states in part: There are no statutory provisions applicable to county courts providing for motions for new trial; however, there are provisions for motions for new trial applicable to proceedings in the district court which are not in conflict with statutes applicable to county court proceedings, and according to § 25-2701, these provisions for motions for new trial applicable in the district court shall apply in the county court. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1315.03 (Cum.Supp. 1992) provides that an order on a motion for new trial is a final order for purposes of appeal, and the time and manner for perfecting an appeal therefrom are the same as in an appeal from a judgment, decree, or final order of the district court in a civil action. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1912 (Cum.Supp.1992) provides the procedure for perfecting an appeal from the district court to the Court of Appeals or this court. An appellant is given 30 days from rendition of judgment, decree, or final order to file a notice of appeal and deposit his or her docket fee. § 25-1912(1). Section 25-1912(2) states in part: In Edward Frank Rozman Co. v. Keillor, 195 Neb. 587, 239 N.W.2d 779 (1976), this court held: "On appeal from a county or municipal court to the District Court, notice of appeal and bond must be filed within 10 days after the rendition of judgment and this period cannot be prolonged by filing a motion for new trial." (Syllabus of the court.) Keillor was decided prior to enactment of § 25-2729, which provides "thirty days after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order complained of" within which a notice of appeal and docket fee must be filed in the county court. In Henry v. Reeves, 234 Neb. 794, 452 N.W.2d 750 (1990), this court dismissed an appeal from the district court which affirmed the judgment of the county court in favor of the plaintiff. The facts were as follows: (Emphasis supplied.) (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 795, 452 N.W.2d at 750-51. In the Reeves case, the final order of which complaint was made was the county court's overruling of the defendant's motion for new trial, and it was obviously filed after the 30-day filing period provided in § 25-2729. In the present case, the defendant filed his motion for new trial within 10 days of the county court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and overruling the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The county court's order denying the defendant's motion for new trial was issued on November 19, 1992. The defendant's notice of appeal from that order was filed within 30 days of November 19, on December 8, 1992, and was timely according to § 25-2729 and Reeves. The Court of Appeals erred in summarily affirming this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to remand the cause to the district court. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. FAHRNBRUCH, J., not participating in the decision.