- 325 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 325

City of Beatrice, Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Daniel A. Meints, Sr., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 4, 2019. Nos. A-18-300 through A-18-320.

1. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When dispositive issues on appeal 

present questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach 

an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the 

court below.

2. Standing: Jurisdiction: Parties. Standing refers to whether a party had, 

at the commencement of the litigation, a personal stake in the outcome 

of the litigation that would warrant a court’s or tribunal’s exercising its 

jurisdiction and remedial powers on the party’s behalf.

3. Standing: Claims: Parties. To have standing, a litigant must assert the 

litigant’s own rights and interests, and cannot rest a claim on the legal 

rights or interests of third parties.

4. Sentences: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A criminal sentence is not 

considered a final judgment until the entry of a final mandate from an 

appellate court, if an appeal has been taken.

Appeal from the District Court for Gage County: Ricky A. 

Schreiner, Judge. Affirmed.

Terry K. Barber, of Barber & Barber, P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellant.

Abigail M. Stark, Beatrice City Attorney, for appellee.

Pirtle, Arterburn, and Welch, Judges.

Welch, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Daniel A. Meints, Sr., appeals an order of the Gage County 

District Court relating to 21 writs of execution issued by the 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

06/04/2019 09:07 AM CDT
- 326 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 325

district court involving a parcel of real property he owns. 

Meints claims that the judgments on which the City of Beatrice, 

Nebraska, requested execution were dormant, that he was 

entitled to exemptions from execution, and that Lynette Reinke 

should have been allowed to intervene in the proceedings. For 

the reasons stated below, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On 25 separate dates in May and June 2011, police officers cited Meints for parking several junked or unlicensed 

motor vehicles on his property in violation of Beatrice Mun. 

Code, ch. 16, art. XVII, § 16-623 (2002). Meints was charged 

with 12 counts in each of 25 cases brought against him and 

was convicted on all 300 counts in a consolidated trial. In 

April 2012, the Gage County Court entered judgments against 

Meints in each case; each of the 25 judgments included court 

costs and 12 fines equal to $1,299 per judgment, or a total 

of $32,475.

Meints appealed to the Gage County District Court, which, 

in each case, affirmed 10 of the 12 convictions and sentences 

and reversed 2 of the convictions. Meints then appealed to 

the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment 

of the district court. See City of Beatrice v. Meints, 21 Neb. 

App. 805, 844 N.W.2d 85 (2014). On petition for further 

review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the decision 

of the Court of Appeals. See City of Beatrice v. Meints, 289 

Neb. 558, 856 N.W.2d 410 (2014). In March 2015, the county 

court issued orders of judgment on 10 of the 12 fines in each 

of the 25 cases in accordance with the mandate from the district court.

In December 2017, the City of Beatrice filed 21 praecipes 

requesting that the clerk of the district court issue execution 

on 21 of the 25 judgments against Meints. Each praecipe 

requested that the sheriff levy on the same parcel of real property owned by Meints located on South 9th Street in Beatrice, 

Nebraska. The district court issued 21 writs of execution in 

response to the requests.
- 327 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 325

On January 2, 2018, Meints filed a request for a hearing in 

the district court alleging that some or all of his property seized 

may be exempt from execution. On January 10, Meints filed a 

motion to quash the execution, alleging that the judgments the 

City of Beatrice sought to execute were dormant because it had 

been over 5 years since the court issued the May 2012 order 

requiring him to pay the fees and costs.

Also on January 10, 2018, Reinke, who Meints’ counsel 

identified as Meints’ girlfriend, filed a motion to intervene in 

the proceedings and a complaint in intervention. Reinke alleged 

that she had an ownership interest in a property involved in the 

execution because she purchased tax sale certificates in 2011, 

she was a resident of the property, and her tax sale certificates 

provided her a right to intervene.

A hearing was held in January 2018 on Meints’ claim for 

exemptions during which Meints claimed he was entitled to a 

serviceman’s exemption and a homestead exemption. In connection with the execution proceedings, the City of Beatrice 

argued Meints was not entitled to exemptions because the 

execution related to criminal proceedings.

In an order dated January 16, 2018, the district court denied 

Meints’ claim for exemptions. Following a hearing on Reinke’s 

motion to intervene and Meints’ motion to quash the execution, the district court entered an order on February 23 which 

denied Reinke’s motion to intervene and overruled Meints’ 

motion to quash. Meints timely appeals from the orders denying his request for exemptions and his motion to quash. Reinke 

did not appeal from the district court’s denial of her motion 

to intervene.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Meints assigns that the district court erred in denying 

Reinke’s motion to intervene, finding his property was not 

exempt from execution, and denying his motion to quash.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] When dispositive issues on appeal present questions 

of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach an 
- 328 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 325

independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by 

the court below. State v. Jerke, 302 Neb. 372, 923 N.W.2d 

378 (2019).

ANALYSIS

Reinke’s Intervention

Meints first assigns that Reinke, his girlfriend, should have 

been permitted to intervene in the proceedings. In order for 

Meints to appeal a claim on behalf of Reinke, he first must 

have standing to do so.

[2,3] Standing refers to whether a party had, at the commencement of the litigation, a personal stake in the outcome 

of the litigation that would warrant a court’s or tribunal’s 

exercising its jurisdiction and remedial powers on the party’s 

behalf. Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B. Servs. of New York, 

297 Neb. 246, 898 N.W.2d 366 (2017). To have standing, a 

litigant must assert the litigant’s own rights and interests, and 

cannot rest a claim on the legal rights or interests of third 

parties. Id.

Reinke did not appeal from the court’s order denying her 

attempt to intervene. Because Meints is attempting to now 

litigate Reinke’s right to intervene, he is resting his claim 

on her rights. She could have chosen to appeal, but did not. 

Accordingly, Meints has no standing to assert Reinke’s rights 

and any assigned errors in connection therewith shall not be 

considered by this court.

Right to Exemption

Meints next assigns that the district court erred in overruling his motion to grant him certain exemptions in connection 

with the City of Beatrice’s attempt to execute on judgments 

involving his property. In support of his contention, Meints 

cites Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1542 (Reissue 2016) of the rules 

governing executions on civil judgments, which rules entitle 

him to certain exemptions from execution, and argues that the 

judgments obtained against him are civil in nature.
- 329 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 325

In response, the City of Beatrice cites to Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 29-2407 (Reissue 2016), which at the pertinent time 

period provided:

Judgements for fines and costs in criminal cases shall 

be a lien upon all the property of the defendant within the 

county from the time of docketing the case by the clerk 

of the proper court, and judgments upon forfeited recognizance shall be a like lien from the time of forfeiture. No 

property of any convict shall be exempt from execution 

issued upon any such judgment as set out in this section 

against such convict except in cases when the convict is 

sentenced to a Department of Correctional Services adult 

correctional facility for a period of more than two years, 

in which cases there shall be the same exemptions as at 

the time may be provided by law for civil cases. The lien 

on real estate of any such judgment for costs shall terminate as provided in section 25-1716.

Accordingly, the issue of whether Meints was entitled to 

exemptions in connection with the execution on judgments 

involving his property turns on whether the proceedings against 

Meints were civil or criminal in nature.

In support of his argument that the proceedings against him 

were civil, Meints cites to McLaughlin v. State, 123 Neb. 861, 

244 N.W. 799 (1932), disapproved on other grounds, State v. 

Amick, 173 Neb. 770, 114 N.W.2d 893 (1962). In McLauglin, 

the Nebraska Supreme Court noted:

But in Peterson v. State, 79 Neb. 132, it was held: “A 

prosecution for the violation of a city ordinance, which 

does not embrace any offense made criminal by the laws 

of the state, while in form a criminal prosecution, is, in 

fact, a civil proceeding to recover a penalty, and clear and 

satisfactory proof that the offense has been committed is 

sufficient to sustain a conviction. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required.” See Liberman v. State, 26 

Neb. 464.

123 Neb. at 863, 244 N.W. at 799-800.
- 330 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 325

The specific issue in McLaughlin was whether keeping 

racetrack gambling devices in a place of business, which was 

prohibited by ordinance, was a civil or criminal proceeding, 

only the latter of which would have entitled the defendant to 

a jury trial. In finding no State counterpart to the city ordinance on harboring racetrack devices, the court held: “It is 

not argued, nor are we able to find, that keeping race track 

gambling devices, as in this case, is other than a violation of 

city ordinances, and, therefore, defendant was not entitled to 

a trial by a jury.” McLaughlin, 123 Neb. at 863, 244 N.W. 

at 800.

Later cases support the rule espoused in McLauglin, supra. 

See, e.g., State v. Warren, 162 Neb. 623, 625, 76 N.W.2d 728, 

730 (1956) (holding “charge made against defendant is not an 

offense by any statute of this state. This is a civil proceeding to recover a penalty for the violation of an ordinance”). 

As such, in order for us to determine whether Meints’ violation of § 16-623 of the City of Beatrice’s code was a civil or 

criminal proceeding, we must determine whether the subject 

matter in § 16-623 is made criminal by the laws of the State 

of Nebraska.

In State v. Meints, 21 Neb. App. 805, 815, 844 N.W.2d 85, 

94 (2014), the Court of Appeals quoted § 16-623, which at that 

time provided:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to park, store, leave 

or permit the parking, storing or leaving of any junked 

motor vehicle, or parts of a motor vehicle, on private 

property within the city for a period of time in excess of 

twenty-one (21) days. It shall be unlawful for any person 

in charge or control of any private property within the 

city, whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessee or otherwise, to allow any motor vehicle which has been unregistered for more than twenty-one (21) days to remain 

upon any private property. Any motor vehicle allowed to 

remain on private property in violation of this subsection 

shall constitute a nuisance and shall be abated.”
- 331 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 325

For Meints to prevail on his theory that violation of this ordinance is civil in nature, he must demonstrate that the conduct 

described in § 16-623 does not embrace conduct made criminal by the laws of the State of Nebraska.

We first note that Meints takes the opposite position now 

than he took in Meints, 21 Neb. App. at 816, 844 N.W.2d at 

95, wherein he argued that § 16-623 was “invalid because it 

criminalizes conduct which is not criminal under the Nebraska 

Revised Satutes.” We further note that the county court and 

reviewing courts treated the proceeding in Meints, supra, as a 

criminal proceeding, including applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, reviewing alleged errors in connection 

with a motion to suppress evidence, reviewing the sufficiency 

of evidence under the criminal standard, and reviewing an 

alleged claim of double jeopardy. In direct response to Meints’ 

assignment of error in Meints that the City of Beatrice was forbidden from “criminaliz[ing] that which is not criminal” under 

the statutes, we held:

The city is authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 18-1720 

(Reissue 2012) to “define, regulate, suppress and prevent 

nuisances, and to declare what shall constitute a nuisance, 

and to abate and remove the same.” The Nebraska statutes 

do not address or regulate the placement or open storage 

of unlicensed, unregistered, or junk motor vehicles upon 

private property. This falls within the discretion of the 

city, as authorized by § 18-1720. In addition, the district 

court also notes that a similar ordinance regulating and 

prohibiting junked vehicles was upheld by the Nebraska 

Supreme Court in Village of Brady v. Melcher, 243 Neb. 

728, 502 N.W.2d 458 (1993). The general rule is that 

courts should give great deference to a city’s determination of which laws should be enacted for the welfare of 

the people. See Giger v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb. 676, 

442 N.W.2d 182 (1989).

21 Neb. App. at 818, 844 N.W.2d at 95, 96. In so holding, we 

implicitly held that via Neb. Rev. Stat. § 18-1720 (Reissue 
- 332 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 325

2012), § 16-623 of the City of Beatrice’s code embraced conduct made criminal by the laws of the State of Nebraska.

Because we find that § 16-623 is a criminal ordinance and 

that a criminal charge and process involving § 16-623 is a 

criminal proceeding, Meints’ convictions and judgments under 

§ 16-623 were subject to execution under § 29-2407. Further, 

because the explicit language in § 29-2407 provides that “[n]o 

property of any convict shall be exempt from execution issued 

upon any such judgment,” we hold that the district court did 

not err in denying Meints’ notice of hearing and claim for 

exemptions in connection with this execution. Further, because 

we find that Meints was not entitled to exemptions in connection with execution on a criminal judgment, we find that 

Meints’ argument that pursuing his property would be “futile” 

because its “assessed value . . . was less than twenty-five 

(25%) percent of the exemptions” is without merit. Brief for 

appellant at 8.

Dormant Judgment

Meints finally argues that the district court erred in not 

finding that the judgments upon which the City of Beatrice 

sought execution were dormant. In support of this argument, 

Meints argues that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1542 (Reissue 

2016), “a judgment becomes dormant if no execution is taken 

out within five (5) years of the judgment date.” Brief for 

appellant at 9. But just like his claim for exemptions, Meints 

is citing to a statute which governs execution on civil judgments. As stated above, Meints was convicted, and judgment 

was rendered, under a criminal proceeding. When a lien is the 

result of a criminal judgment, the rule governing dormancy is 

different. The version of § 29-2407 in effect at the pertinent 

time provided that “[t]he lien on real estate of any such judgment for costs shall terminate as provided in section 25-1716.” 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1716 (Reissue 2016) provides, in pertinent part:

The judgment for unpaid court costs in any court of 

this state shall cease to be a lien on real estate unless 
- 333 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 325

action has been brought thereon within (1) five years after 

the latest partial payment has been made thereon, or (2) 

five years after such case becomes inactive or is closed by 

final judgment.

[4] A criminal sentence is not considered a final judgment 

until the entry of a final mandate from an appellate court, if 

an appeal has been taken. State v. White, 256 Neb. 536, 590 

N.W.2d 863 (1999); Jones v. Clark, 253 Neb. 161, 568 N.W.2d 

897 (1997); State v. Schrein, 247 Neb. 256, 526 N.W.2d 420 

(1995). The 5-year term under § 25-1716 began to run in 

March 2015, when the mandate was entered on Meints’ judgments and the judgments became final. The City of Beatrice’s 

executions on those judgments were commenced in 2017, well 

within the lifespan of the judgment liens. Meints’ assignment 

of error is without merit.

CONCLUSION

Having found that Meints has no standing to raise Reinke’s 

claim and that his other assignments of error are without merit, 

we affirm.

Affirmed.