- 626 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

Beverly J. Seid, appellee, v. 

Rita J. Seid and Judy L. 

Ramer, appellants.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed December 17, 2021. No. S-21-205.

1. Appeal and Error. An alleged error must be both specifically assigned 

and specifically argued in the brief of the party asserting the error to be 

considered by an appellate court.

2. Courts: Receivers: Appeal and Error. The request for the appointment 

of a receiver is addressed to the sound, equitable discretion of the court, 

and its ruling thereon will not be reversed on appeal unless an abuse of 

discretion is shown.

3. Receivers: Judgments: Appeal and Error. An order giving directions 

to a receiver will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse 

of discretion.

4. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question which does 

not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a 

matter of law.

5. Courts: Receivers. Ordinarily the appointment of a receiver is an ancillary remedy, for the purpose of aiding the court in the granting of appropriate relief in the main suit upon which it is dependent.

6. Courts: Equity: Receivers: Property. A receivership serves to assist 

the court in safeguarding assets, suitably administering property, and 

achieving a final, equitable distribution of assets, accomplishing complete justice, as far as practicable, for the parties before the court.

7. Courts: Receivers. The purpose of a receivership is to carry out the 

orders of the court.

8. Receivers: Property. A receivership receives and preserves the property 

or fund in litigation, and it preserves and properly disposes of the subject of litigation.

9. Receivers. A receivership will not be permitted to continue indefinitely.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

01/21/2022 09:08 AM CST
- 627 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

10. Receivers: Property. Whenever the reason or necessity for a receiver

ship ceases to exist, the property should be discharged therefrom

although the mere coming into existence of this state of things does not 

ipso facto discharge the receiver.

11. Courts: Receivers. A receivership may be terminated only by an order 

of the court, and a receivership should be closed and terminated without 

unnecessary delay.

12. Courts: Equity: Receivers. Courts of equity have original power to 

appoint receivers and to make such orders and decrees with respect to 

the discharge of their trust as justice and equity may require.

13. Constitutional Law: Legislature: Receivers. Because the Legislature 

incorporated the district court’s inherent constitutional power to appoint 

receivers into Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1081(8) (Reissue 2016), that subsection is declaratory of a power already existing under the constitution.

14. Receivers: Final Orders. An order appointing a receiver is a final, 

appealable order.

15. Final Orders: Time: Appeal and Error. Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1912(1) (Cum. Supp. 2020), an appeal must be filed within 30 days 

of the final order from which an appeal is taken.

16. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Time: Appeal and Error. Where a notice 

of appeal is not filed within 30 days after the entry of a final order, an 

appellate court obtains no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from that order, 

and an attempt to appeal from that order must be dismissed.

17. Appeal and Error. A lower court cannot commit error in resolving an 

issue never presented and submitted to it for disposition.

18. Equity. Equity looks through form to substance. Thus, a court of equity 

goes to the root of the matter and is not deterred by form.

19. Appeal and Error. A party cannot complain of error which the party 

has invited the court to commit.

Appeal from the District Court for Richardson County: 

Julie D. Smith, Judge. Affirmed and remanded for further 

proceedings.

Angelo M. Ligouri, of Ligouri Law Office, for appellants.

Steven J. Mercure and Lindy L. Mahoney, of Nestor & 

Mercure, for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
- 628 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

Cassel, J.

INTRODUCTION

Rita J. Seid and Judy L. Ramer (Judy), a testator’s children, 

appeal from a district court’s order that instructed a receiver 

to continue its management of agricultural land, in which they 

each held fractional life estates along with Beverly J. Seid, 

the testator’s surviving spouse. They assert the court erred or 

abused its discretion by “appointing a [r]eceiver for 2021.” The 

court’s order did not “appoint” a receiver; it simply provided 

further instructions to the one who was previously appointed. 

It is too late to attack the receiver’s appointment in 2019. We 

affirm the order and remand the cause for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

Beverly, Rita, and Judy possess fractional life estates, 

one third each, in agricultural land (the land). After Beverly 

could not agree with Rita and Judy regarding the management of the land, Beverly filed in May 2019 a “Complaint 

for Accounting, Disbursement of Income and Appointment of 

Receiver.” Beverly alleged that she had not received payment 

for her share of the income derived from the land in 2018 or 

any related documentation of income, expenses, and assets. 

Beverly demanded she receive the aforementioned payment 

and documentation.

Beverly also moved that “a [r]eceiver be appointed for 

the purpose of entering into farm lease agreements with any 

perspective [sic] tenants for 2019 in order to generate income 

during the pendency of these proceedings.” The court originally overruled Beverly’s motion, but after ineffective mediation, the court in December 2019 appointed a receiver. The 

court ordered:

The Court finds that [the receiver] should be, and 

hereby is appointed, as receiver for the purpose of soliciting bids for cash rent and entering into any farm lease 

agreements with tenants for 2020. [Beverly’s] Motion to 

reconsider appointment of a receiver, filed on October 16, 

2019 is granted. 
- 629 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

In March 2020, Rita and Judy moved the court to order 

the parties to equally contribute funds for the maintenance 

and repair of the land for “necessary dirt work” to ensure it 

remains suitable for farming. The court overruled the motion, 

finding “the evidence before the Court does not prove that 

failure to perform the conservation and dirt work [in 2020] 

would do lasting damage, diminish the value of the inherit

ance, or cause a permanent loss to the remainderpersons.” 

(Emphasis omitted.)

The receiver apparently performed his duties, and 

in December 2020, he filed a “Motion to Make Final 

Disbursements and Pay Expenses 2020” and also a “Motion 

for Instructions,” requesting further instructions regarding his 

management of the land for the 2021 farm year. The court 

announced that it planned on granting the receiver’s motion for 

final distribution, but the court did not discharge the receiver. 

The record does not include an order granting the motion.

The court held a hearing in February 2021 regarding the 

receiver’s motion for instructions. Rita and Judy opposed the 

receiver’s motion, arguing, “That [May 2019] complaint [had] 

completely been resolved. Any relief requested, anything within 

that complaint is all done.” The record does not show that Rita 

and Judy ever moved the court to discharge the receiver or 

otherwise sought a final order or judgment to dispose of the 

pending complaint. Nor does the record include any such final 

order or judgment.

At the same hearing in February 2021, Rita and Judy orally 

renewed their March 2020 motion for the maintenance and 

repair of the land. Rita and Judy supported their request with 

affidavits stating that the land’s terraces and water lines were 

in disrepair. Beverly opposed Rita and Judy’s request, arguing 

that they would be self-dealing because Rita’s husband would 

be performing the repairs.

During the hearing, the court inquired into whether the 

relief requested in Beverly’s May 2019 complaint had been 

resolved. The court asked whether Beverly had received “the 
- 630 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

money that was owed to her from 2018[?]” Beverly’s counsel 

confirmed that she had received “moneys,” but stated that 

Beverly was “still in the process of evaluating all of the documents that were submitted.”

On the same date as the hearing, the court ordered:

The Receiver shall solicit bids and enter into any farm 

lease agreements for 2021 in a similar manner as he did 

in 2020. Cash rent shall be paid up front.

. . . .

. . . The Court orders the Receiver to investigate to 

determine whether failure to perform the requested maintenance would do lasting damage, diminish the value 

of the inheritance, or cause a permanent loss to the 

remainderpersons. . . . The Receiver shall report back to 

the [c]ourt within sixty (60) days. 

The record does not include a responsive report from the 

receiver, but 28 days after the court’s order, Rita and Judy filed 

an appeal from the order instructing the receiver. We moved 

the appeal to our docket. 1

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Rita and Judy assert six assignments of error, five of which 

characterize that the district court “appoint[ed] a [r]eceiver for 

2021.” These five assign that the court did so “without either 

party requesting the appointment,” “without deciding that a 

[r]eceiver was needed or necessary,” and “without considering the evidence in affidavits presented by [Rita and Judy]”; 

that the “appointment” was “unjust, inequitable and cannot 

be reached as a matter of law”; and an abuse of discretion as 

“contrary to Nebraska [l]aw.” The sixth assignment asserts 

that the court’s order was “not requested within [Beverly’s] 

[c]omplaint” and thus was an abuse of discretion.

[1] An alleged error must be both specifically assigned and 

specifically argued in the brief of the party asserting the error 

1 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2020).
- 631 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

to be considered by an appellate court. 2 We address only those 

issues both assigned as error and argued by Rita and Judy.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[2-4] The request for the appointment of a receiver is 

addressed to the sound, equitable discretion of the court, and its 

ruling thereon will not be reversed on appeal unless an abuse 

of discretion is shown. 3 Similarly, an order giving directions to 

a receiver will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an 

abuse of discretion. 4 A jurisdictional question which does not 

involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as 

a matter of law. 5

ANALYSIS

Receivership Principles

[5-8] Ordinarily the appointment of a receiver is an ancillary remedy, for the purpose of aiding the court in the granting of appropriate relief in the main suit upon which it is 

dependent. 6 A receivership serves to assist the court in safeguarding assets, suitably administering property, and achieving a final, equitable distribution of assets, accomplishing 

complete justice, as far as practicable, for the parties before 

the court. 7 Its purpose is to carry out the orders of the court. 8

A receivership receives and preserves the property or fund in 

2 AVG Partners I v. Genesis Health Clubs, 307 Neb. 47, 948 N.W.2d 212 

(2020).

3 O’Neill Production Credit Assn. v. Putnam Ranches, Inc., 198 Neb. 145, 

251 N.W.2d 884 (1977).

4 Priesner v. Starry, 300 Neb. 81, 912 N.W.2d 249 (2018).

5 Id.

6 Bodge v. Skinner Packing Co., 115 Neb. 41, 211 N.W. 203 (1926).

7 65 Am. Jur. 2d Receivers § 5 (2021).

8 Id. See, also, Dickie v. Flamme Bros., 251 Neb. 910, 560 N.W.2d 762 

(1997).
- 632 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

litigation, and it preserves and properly disposes of the subject 

of litigation. 9

[9-11] A receivership will not be permitted to continue 

indefinitely. 10 Whenever the reason or necessity for a receivership ceases to exist, the property should be discharged therefrom although the mere coming into existence of this state of 

things does not ipso facto discharge the receiver. 11 A receivership may be terminated only by an order of the court, and a 

receivership should be closed and terminated without unnecessary delay. 12

The Nebraska Legislature has prescribed a process by which 

a district court may appoint and instruct a receiver. A statute 

authorizes appointment of a receiver by a district court

in an action . . . by a creditor to subject any property or 

fund to his or her claim, or between . . . others jointly 

owning or interested in any property or fund on the application of any party to the suit when the property or fund is 

in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured.” 13

Another statute dictates, “Every order appointing a receiver 

shall contain special directions in respect to his powers and 

duties, and . . . such further directions may be made in that 

behalf by the court or judge as may in the further progress of 

the cause become proper.” 14

[12,13] We pause to reconcile seemingly inconsistent 

case law regarding the source of a district court’s power to 

appoint a receiver. In Floral Lawns Memorial Gardens Assn. v. 

9 See 65 Am. Jur. 2d, supra note 7. See, also, Vila v. Grand Island Electric 

Light, Ice & Cold Storage Co., 68 Neb. 222, 97 N.W. 613 (1903).

10 75 C.J.S. Receivers § 79 (2013).

11 Id.

12 Id. See, also, State, ex rel. Sorensen, v. Hoskins State Bank, 132 Neb. 

878, 273 N.W. 834 (1937); 21A Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Receivers § 392 

(2012).

13 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1081(1) (Reissue 2016).

14 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1087 (Reissue 2016).
- 633 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

Becker,

 15 we stated that “a court’s ability to appoint a receiver 

is governed by statute. The court can appoint a receiver only 

in specific situations . . . .” On the other hand, in State, ex 

rel. Sorensen, v. Nebraska State Bank,

 16 we explained that 

the Nebraska Constitution conferred the power to appoint a 

receiver upon district courts. 17 We reaffirmed that a district 

court’s power to appoint a receiver is “beyond the power of 

the legislature to limit or control; that while the legislature 

may grant to the district courts such other jurisdiction as it 

may deem proper, it cannot limit or take from such courts their 

broad and general jurisdiction which the Constitution has conferred upon them.” 18 Accordingly, courts of equity have original power to appoint receivers and to make such orders and 

decrees with respect to the discharge of their trust as justice 

and equity may require. 19 Because the Legislature incorporated 

the district court’s inherent constitutional power to appoint 

receivers into § 25-1081(8), that subsection is declaratory of a 

power already existing under the constitution. 20

Here, the district court’s 2019 appointment of a receiver was 

premised upon § 25-1081(1). We now turn to the arguments 

attacking the 2021 order before us.

Application

Rita and Judy present three arguments in support of their 

assignments that the court abused its discretion by “appointing a [r]eceiver for 2021.” Rita and Judy argue that the court 

15 Floral Lawns Memorial Gardens Assn. v. Becker, 284 Neb. 532, 537, 822 

N.W.2d 692, 697 (2012).

16 State, ex rel. Sorensen, v. Nebraska State Bank, 124 Neb. 449, 247 N.W. 

31 (1933).

17 See Neb. Const. art. 5, § 9.

18 State, ex rel. Sorensen, v. Nebraska State Bank, supra note 16, 124 Neb. at 

454, 247 N.W. at 33.

19 See id.

20 See Smith v. White, 62 Neb. 56, 86 N.W. 930 (1901).
- 634 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

abused its discretion by appointing the receiver for 2021 

because (1) neither party requested the appointment, (2) the 

court never determined that the receiver was needed or necessary for 2021, and (3) the court failed to consider the evidence 

in affidavits presented by Rita and Judy.

All three of Rita and Judy’s arguments are fundamentally 

flawed because they are premised upon the notion that the 

court “appoint[ed] a [r]eceiver for 2021.” It did not. The court 

appointed the receiver in 2019 and never discharged him—nor 

did Rita and Judy ever seek his discharge. There is no motion 

to discharge the receiver in our record. Nor does there appear 

any attempt by Rita and Judy to invoke any recognized procedure to dispose of the main action.

[14-16] It is now too late to attack the 2019 appointment 

order. An order appointing a receiver is a final, appealable 

order. 21 Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(1) (Cum. Supp. 

2020), an appeal must be filed within 30 days of the final order 

from which an appeal is taken. 22 Where a notice of appeal is 

not filed within 30 days after the entry of a final order, an 

appellate court obtains no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from 

that order, and an attempt to appeal from that order must be 

dismissed. 23 No appeal was taken from the 2019 order, and we 

lack jurisdiction to address its merits.

[17] The court’s 2021 order did not “appoint” a receiver; it 

simply provided further instructions to the one who was previously appointed. During the 2021 hearing, the court asked 

whether Beverly had received her share of the income from the 

land in 2018 and related documentation—which was demanded 

in the complaint. Beverly’s attorney responded that she had 

21 Floral Lawns Memorial Gardens Assn. v. Becker, supra note 15.

22 Goodman v. City of Omaha, 274 Neb. 539, 742 N.W.2d 26 (2007), 

overruled on other grounds, McEwen v. Nebraska State College Sys., 303 

Neb. 552, 931 N.W.2d 120 (2019).

23 See State v. Reed, 226 Neb. 575, 412 N.W.2d 848 (1987). See, also, 

§ 25-1912.
- 635 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

received “moneys,” but that she was still reviewing the related 

documentation. Rita and Judy’s attorney protested Beverly’s 

assertion that she was still reviewing the documentation, but 

provided no evidence to the contrary. Further, Rita and Judy’s 

affidavits did not claim that Beverly’s complaint was resolved. 

Instead, the affidavits focused on Rita and Judy’s renewed 

request that the court order the parties to equally contribute to 

the maintenance and repair of the land. Because Rita and Judy 

did not seek a discharge of the receiver, they cannot premise 

error on the court’s failure to do so. A lower court cannot commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted 

to it for disposition. 24

Two other issues merit brief discussion. First, Rita and Judy 

urge that the February 2021 order was flawed because it was 

not based “upon application of any party to the suit.” 25 Second, 

they argue that the February 2021 order was void for lack of 

the notice required by a statute. 26 Both lack merit.

[18,19] Although the receiver—who, we assume for purposes of discussion, was not a “party”—initially filed the 

motion for further instructions, at the hearing both sides 

requested interim relief from the court consistent only with 

further action by the receiver. While formal joinder in the 

receiver’s motion would have been preferable, equity looks 

through form to substance. Thus, a court of equity goes to 

the root of the matter and is not deterred by form. 27 In substance, the parties sought relief through the existing receiver. 

Moreover, a party cannot complain of error which the party 

has invited the court to commit. 28

24 See Eletech, Inc. v. Conveyance Consulting Group, 308 Neb. 733, 956 

N.W.2d 692 (2021).

25 § 25-1087 (emphasis supplied).

26 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1089 (Reissue 2016).

27 Huffman v. Peterson, 272 Neb. 62, 718 N.W.2d 522 (2006).

28 See VKGS v. Planet Bingo, 309 Neb. 950, 962 N.W.2d 909 (2021).
- 636 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

Rita and Judy’s reliance on lack of notice fares no better. 

First, the statute they cite applies to “[e]very order appointing a 

receiver . . . .” 29 But we have already exposed the flaw in their 

reasoning—the 2019 order and not the 2021 order “appointed” 

the receiver. But more fundamentally, they participated in the 

hearing. The requirements of the statute in regard to notice 

may be waived. 30 Having participated and requested affirm

ative relief, they waived objection to notice of the motion 

for instructions.

We find no merit to the assignments of error attacking the 

validity of the February 2021 order further instructing the 

receiver, and we find no abuse of discretion in the instructions 

given. Thus, we affirm the court’s order.

Before concluding, we return to two basic principles cited 

above: Appointment of a receiver is an ancillary remedy 31 and 

a receivership will not be permitted to continue indefinitely. 32

Trial judges are encouraged to implement firm, consistent procedures for minimizing continuances to meet the case progression standards of the Nebraska Supreme Court. 33 Each member 

of the bar shall cooperate with the judiciary in meeting the 

case progression standards of the Nebraska Supreme Court. 34

The receivership here cannot be viewed as an end goal of 

the litigation.

CONCLUSION

Rita and Judy’s assignments are fundamentally flawed, 

because the receiver was appointed in 2019—not 2021. The 

29 See § 25-1089.

30 See Modisett v. Campbell, 144 Neb. 222, 13 N.W.2d 126 (1944). See, also, 

Farmers & Merchants Bank v. German Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 229, 80 N.W. 

820 (1899).

31 See Bodge v. Skinner Packing Co., supra note 6.

32 75 C.J.S. Receivers, supra note 10.

33 Putnam v. Scherbring, 297 Neb. 868, 902 N.W.2d 140 (2017).

34 Id.
- 637 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

310 Nebraska Reports

SEID v. SEID

Cite as 310 Neb. 626

district court did not abuse its discretion in its instructions to 

the receiver. We affirm the court’s order and remand the cause 

for further proceedings.

Affirmed and remanded for 

further proceedings.