- 280 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

David Weyh, appellee, v.

Barry Gottsch, appella

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 7, 2019. No. S-18-192.

1. Judgments: Appeal and Error. In a bench trial of a law action, the 

trial court’s factual findings have the effect of a jury verdict and will 

not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong. But an appellate court 

independently reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.

2. Limitations of Actions: Appeal and Error. The point at which a statute 

of limitations begins to run must be determined from the facts of each 

case, and the decision of the district court on the issue of the statute of 

limitations normally will not be set aside by an appellate court unless 

clearly wrong.

3. Declaratory Judgments: Contracts: Appeal and Error. An action for 

declaratory judgment is sui generis; whether such action is to be treated 

as one at law or one in equity is to be determined by the nature of the 

dispute. When a dispute sounds in contract, the action is to be treated as 

one at law. An appellate court treats the determination of factual issues 

in such a declaratory judgment action which was tried without a jury in 

the same manner as any other action at law; accordingly, the findings of 

the trial court have the effect of a verdict and will not be set aside unless 

clearly wrong.

4. Prejudgment Interest: Appeal and Error. Awards of prejudgment 

interest are reviewed de novo.

5. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a question 

of law on which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below.

6. Limitations of Actions: Contracts. An action upon an oral contract 

must be brought within 4 years from the date of the event giving rise to 

the cause of action.

7. Actions: Contracts: Time: Damages. A cause of action in contract 

accrues at the time of breach or the failure to do the thing agreed to. 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

07/05/2019 01:06 AM CDT
- 281 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

This is so even though the nature and extent of damages may not 

be known.

8. Limitations of Actions. Generally, a cause of action accrues and the 

period of limitations begins to run upon the violation of a legal right, 

that is, when the aggrieved party has the right to institute and maintain suit.

9. Contracts: Judgments: Appeal and Error. The disputed terms of an 

oral agreement are questions of fact, and in a bench trial of a law action, 

the trial court’s factual findings have the effect of a jury verdict and will 

not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong.

10. Trial: Witnesses: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a bench trial of an 

action at law, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the 

witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. An appellate court 

will not reevaluate the credibility of witnesses or reweigh testimony but 

will review the evidence for clear error.

11. Trial: Expert Witnesses: Appeal and Error. Generally, an appellate 

court reviews a trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony for an 

abuse of discretion.

12. Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a civil case, the admission or 

exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced 

a substantial right of the complaining party.

13. Statutes: Appeal and Error. When an appellate court construes statutes 

relating to the same subject matter, it should do so in a manner that 

maintains a sensible and consistent scheme and gives effect to every 

statutory provision.

14. Statutes. It is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into 

a statute that is not warranted by the language; neither is it within the 

province of a court to read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous out of 

a statute.

15. Prejudgment Interest: Statutes. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 45-103.02 and 

45-104 (Reissue 2010) are alternate and independent statutes authorizing 

the recovery of prejudgment interest.

16. Prejudgment Interest. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-104 (Reissue 2010) contains no requirement that the claims described therein must also be 

liquidated in order to recover prejudgment interest.

17. Judgments: Interest: Time. Prejudgment interest under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 45-104 (Reissue 2010) ends, and postjudgment interest begins, on the 

date of entry of judgment.

Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: Stefan

A. Martinez, Judge. Affirmed as modifi
- 282 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

Molly J. Miller, Patrick J. Sullivan, and Travis M. Jacott, of 

Adams & Sullivan, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Cathy S. Trent-Vilim, Daniel P. Chesire, Brian J. Brislen, 

and Adam R. Feeney, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stac

Papik, and Freudenberg,

Stacy, 

Pursuant to an oral agreement, David Weyh and Barry 

Gottsch farmed together for approximately 10 years and 

agreed to share net profits equally. When the farming operation 

ended and it was time to settle up, a dispute arose and Weyh 

filed this action seeking to recover his share of the operation’s profits. After a bench trial, the district court found that 

Gottsch owed Weyh $1,214,056.73 in unpaid profits. It also 

found that Weyh was entitled to prejudgment interest in the 

amount of $972,582.10 pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-104 

(Reissue 2010).

Gottsch appealed, and we granted bypass to address the 

assignments of error related to recovery of prejudgment interest under Nebraska law. On that issue, Gottsch argues that all 

requests for prejudgment interest must comply with Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 45-103.02 (Reissue 2010), and he contends it was error 

to award prejudgment interest under § 45-104 without also 

finding Weyh’s claim was liquidated under § 45-103.02(2). 

Weyh disagrees, and argues §§ 45-103.02(2) and 45-104 

provide alternate routes for recovering prejudgment interest. Weyh contends that because his claim is the type of 

claim enumerated in § 45-104, prejudgment interest was properly awarded.

After examining the statutory language and legislative 

history of the pertinent statutes, and considering our competing lines of authority on prejudgment interest, we hold 

that § 45-103.02(2) is not the exclusive means of recovering 
- 283 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

prejudgment interest in Nebraska, and we disapprove of prior 

cases holding otherwise. We clarify that §§ 45-103.02 and 

45-104 provide separate and independent means of recovering 

prejudgment interest, and we hold that when a claim is of the 

types enumerated in § 45-104, then prejudgment interest may 

be recovered without regard to whether the claim is liquidated. 

We thus find no error in applying § 45-104 to award prejudgment interest to Weyh, but we agree with Gottsch there was an 

error in calculating prejudgment interest. We affirm the judgment as modified.

I. FACTS

In October 2004, Weyh and Gottsch entered into an oral 

agreement to farm together. They agreed Weyh would provide 

the labor and manage the day-to-day farming operations. They 

agreed Gottsch would provide the equipment and some occasional labor and would handle all the financial aspects of the 

farming operation. They agreed the operation would farm some 

land owned by Gottsch and some land owned by third parties. 

They agreed the operation would continue from year to year 

until one of them decided to end it, and they agreed to share 

the net profits of the farming operation equally. Their agreement was never reduced to writing.

Weyh and Gottsch farmed together continuously through 

the 2014 harvest. During that period, Weyh performed work 

on the farm nearly every day and also hired and supervised 

additional laborers. Weyh kept a general log of his daily farming activities. He did not take a salary or wage from the farming operation, but Gottsch occasionally provided Weyh with 

what the parties described as “draws against future profits.” 

Both parties understood those draws were being advanced 

against Weyh’s share of the farming operation’s net profits 

once they finally “settled up.” While the farming operation 

was ongoing, Gottsch and Weyh did not settle up at the end of 

each farming year. Instead, it was understood that when one 

or both of them decided to end the farming operation, Gottsch 
- 284 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

would provide an accounting and the net profits would then be 

determined and distributed equally.

Gottsch purchased the planting and harvesting equipment for 

the farming operation, and he was responsible for marketing the 

crops and keeping the farming operation’s books. All proceeds 

from the farming operation went into bank accounts controlled 

exclusively by Gottsch. Gottsch also used these accounts for 

his personal expenses and for some of his other business 

endeavors. Gottsch’s bookkeeper, Debra Wetzel, maintained 

the books for the farming operation and for Gottsch’s other 

businesses. After the farming operation ended, Wetzel prepared 

a profit-and-loss statement for the entire farming operation. 

While the farming operation was ongoing, there was no formal 

accounting prepared.

In October 2014, Gottsch notified Weyh he had decided 

to end the farming operation and it was time to “settle up.” 

Shortly thereafter, Gottsch told Weyh the entire farming operation generated net profits of $1,518,115.65. Gottsch arrived at 

that figure by expensing to the farming operation, among other 

things, $1,813,164.15 for accumulated rent on land owned by 

Gottsch and farmed by the operation, and $144,161.04 for earnings paid to one of Gottsch’s employees, Philip Kollars, who 

sometimes worked for the farming operation. Weyh disputed 

both these expenses, claiming neither was properly attributed 

to the farming operation.

1. Complain

In December 2014, Weyh sued Gottsch in the district court 

for Sarpy County, Nebraska, seeking to recover his share of 

the net profits of the farming operation. Weyh’s complaint set 

out the parties’ oral agreement and alleged several theories of 

recovery, including breach of contract. The complaint alleged 

the farming operation’s net profits totaled $3,475,440.70, and 

Weyh sought to recover half of that amount plus prejudgment interest.

Gottsch’s answer admitted he had failed to pay Weyh the 

agreed upon one-half share of net profits and admitted he was 
- 285 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

in possession of money belonging to Weyh. But Gottsch alleged 

that a profit-and-loss statement had not yet been completed for 

the 2014 crop year, and further alleged that a final accounting and payment had been “hindered” by Weyh’s demands to 

change the profit-and-loss statement. Gottsch admitted that his 

“failure to perform his obligations under the contract has damaged [Weyh] in an amount to be determined following a full 

accounting,” but he denied that Weyh was entitled to recover 

the amount sought in the complaint.

2. Amended Compla

Eventually, Gottsch provided Weyh a final accounting that 

included the 2014 crop year. The final accounting showed the 

entire farming operation generated net profits of $1,079,003.58. 

Included among the expenses of the farming operation were 

$2,130,657.21 in rent to Gottsch for land owned by him and 

farmed by the operation, and $208,452.64 in earnings paid 

to Kollars.

After Weyh received the final accounting from Gottsch, 

he amended his complaint to expressly accept the final 

accounting, with two exceptions: Weyh alleged that neither the $2,130,657.21 in accumulated rent to Gottsch nor 

the $208,452.64 in earnings paid to Kollars were properly 

expensed to the farming operation. The amended complaint 

sought a declaratory judgment to that effect and alleged separate theories of recovery for breach of contract, fraudulent 

misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment/

constructive trust, money received and retained, and breach 

of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On 

each theory of recovery, Weyh’s amended complaint sought 

recovery of his one-half share of the net profits plus prejudgment interest.

Gottsch filed an answer to the amended complaint and later 

was permitted to amend his answer. The amended answer 

admitted the parties had orally agreed to farm together and 

had agreed to share equally in the profits and losses of the 

farming operation. But Gottsch denied that Weyh was entitled 
- 286 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

to recover the amount sought in the amended complaint, and 

he raised several affirmative defenses, including that Weyh’s 

claims were time barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-211 and 

25-212 (Reissue 2016).

3. Bench T

During the 3-day bench trial, the primary disputes were (1) 

whether Weyh’s claims were time barred and (2) how to treat 

the two contested expenses: rent to Gottsch and earnings to 

Kollar. Both parties testified on these issues.

(a) Weyh’s Testimony

According to Weyh, he and Gottsch decided to farm together 

while they were standing on a hillside in 2004. At that time, 

they agreed Weyh would provide the farm labor and Gottsch 

would provide the land, the equipment, and the financial management. They agreed to share net profits equally, and they 

agreed to farm together “until we both decided to quit.” Weyh 

testified they never agreed that Gottsch would be paid cash rent 

in addition to a share of the profits.

In the fall of 2014, Gottsch told Weyh he was ending the 

farming operation. After learning this, Weyh demanded a full 

accounting, and Gottsch agreed it was time to “settle up.” 

Weyh claims Gottsch remarked at the time “I owe you so 

much money” and suggested that with the all the money he 

was owed, Weyh could start his own operation if he wanted to 

continue farming.

Once a final accounting was prepared, Weyh accepted it, 

with the exception of two expenses: $2,130,657.21 in rent to 

Gottsch and $208,452.64 in earnings paid to Kollars. According 

to Weyh, neither of these expenses were properly attributed to 

the farming operation.

Weyh testified that Gottsch never brought up the topic of 

rent until 2006, when they met to go over Gottsch’s financial 

notes. During that 2006 meeting, Weyh noticed that Gottsch 

had listed, as a farm expense, rent to himself on the land he 

owned. Weyh told Gottsch that was not a proper farm expense 
- 287 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

under their agreement, and Gottsch replied that “we’ll figure 

it out.” Weyh testified the two did not discuss rent again, and 

Weyh did not press the issue further. Weyh testified that when 

he and Gottsch farmed land owned by others, the farming 

operation entered into written lease agreements for cash rent, 

and that none of those agreements also included crop share.

Weyh also testified about a hunting operation he and Gottsch 

entered into in 2005, again pursuant to an oral agreement. 

Initially, they agreed Gottsch would contribute the property 

upon which hunts would take place, Weyh would serve as the 

hunting guide, and they would split net profits equally. Under 

that initial agreement, Gottsch did not charge rent for the use of 

his land. Later, they modified the agreement so that Weyh paid 

Gottsch cash rent for the use of his land, and Weyh retained 

100 percent of the profits from the hunts. At no time during the 

operation of the parties’ hunting business did Gottsch receive 

both cash rent and a share of the profits.

Weyh objected to expensing Kollars’ earnings to the farming operation. According to Weyh, Gottsch hired Kollars in 

2010 to take care of Gottsch’s personal and rental properties, and at that time, Gottsch assured Weyh that Kollars’ 

wages would not come out of the farming operation. Kollars 

performed work on Gottsch’s cars and pool and several of 

Gottsch’s properties. Over time, Gottsch asked Kollars to do 

maintenance work on some of the farming equipment too. 

Weyh objected to Kollars’ working for the farming operation, 

as he did not think Kollars’ help was needed. At some point, 

Kollars told Weyh that Gottsch had instructed him to charge 

at least 50 percent of his time to the farming operation. Weyh 

objected to that practice because he did not think Kollars was 

really working for the farm, and Kollars replied, “I only do 

what I’m told.”

(b) Gottsch’s Testimony

According to Gottsch, when he and Weyh agreed to farm 

together, they also agreed that rent on Gottsch’s land would 

be a farm expense. Gottsch did not dispute that he and Weyh 
- 288 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

discussed farming together while they were on the hillside in 

2004, but he thought the agreement on rent occurred during a 

later conversation at the “brown shop” sometime before the 

2005 planting season. Gottsch admitted that his recollection 

of that conversation was vague, but he recalled telling Weyh 

he would “put up all the money and all the equipment” but “I 

got to charge rent.” Gottsch testified that one of the reasons he 

started farming, and agreed to purchase all the equipment, was 

that he had sold his share of a family business and wanted to 

manage his capital gains exposure.

Gottsch testified that after the 2005, 2006, and 2007 crop 

years, he provided Weyh with some handwritten financial notes 

that listed, as a farm expense, rent on Gottsch’s land. Gottsch 

did not recall that Weyh ever “confronted” him about including 

rent as an expense of the farming operation.

Gottsch testified that “just before the lawsuit” was filed, he 

hired an agronomist to help him set the cash rents for all of the 

prior farming years. At that time, he also modified the rents for 

the 2005, 2006, and 2007 crop years. Gottsch admitted that he 

never discussed the amount of rent with Weyh prior to any crop 

year and that Weyh had “zero” input on the amount of rent. 

Gottsch was not aware of any other farming operation where 

the landowner would get cash rent plus half the crop share, and 

he admitted it was common to agree in advance on the amount 

of rent so the farm tenant could decide whether to accept or 

reject the rent before the crop year. Gottsch admitted Weyh did 

not have such an opportunity before any of the crop years for 

which Gottsch was seeking rent.

Regarding the “draws” paid to Weyh, Gottsch testified there 

was no set schedule, interval, or timeframe for draws. Instead, 

Weyh would ask for a draw when he needed it and Gottsch 

would “just round it up to whatever I felt like would be good,” 

because he knew Weyh “had money coming.” Gottsch testified that the parties did not take stock of their profits and 

losses after each crop year and that they never agreed to settle 

up after each year. Gottsch admitted that he was “terrible 
- 289 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

at settling up” and that when he decided to end the farming 

operation in the fall of 2014, he knew an accounting needed to 

be done for “the entirety of the operation.”

In 2010, Gottsch hired Kollars to perform maintenance and 

repairs on Gottsch’s various properties and vehicles. Gottsch 

also directed Kollars to do “some” work for the farming 

operation. When Gottsch informed Weyh that Kollars would 

be available to help with the farming operation, Weyh disapproved, because “he wanted his guys helping.” Gottsch told 

Kollars to report his time directly to Wetzel, Gottsch’s bookkeeper, and he denied that he ever instructed Kollars to attribute a certain amount of his time to the farming operation.

In 2014, Wetzel attributed most of Kollars’ time to the farming operation. At trial, Gottsch admitted that was not correct. 

Gottsch testified that Kollars performed “some” work for the 

farm in 2014, but Gottsch did not think there was “any way he 

had that high of a percentage with the farm.” Gottsch admitted 

that, other than what Kollars reported to Wetzel, he had no way 

of knowing what percentage of Kollars’ time was attributable 

to the farming operation.

(c) Bookkeeper’s Testimony

In 2006, Wetzel began keeping the books for Gottsch’s 

personal and business entities, including those related to the 

farming operation. Wetzel did not keep separate accounts for 

the farming operation and Gottsch’s personal and other business affairs; all of Gottsch’s financial information went into a 

single account for bookkeeping purposes, with separate classifications. Using a business software application, Wetzel would, 

as much as possible, enter “farm” expenses contemporaneously 

as they occurred. Sometimes she was provided information on 

expenses from Gottsch, and other times from Weyh. Wetzel 

described Weyh’s recordkeeping practices as “pretty detailed” 

and Gottsch’s as “[p]retty bad.”

Wetzel testified that while the farming operation was ongoing, Gottsch never asked her to include rent on his land as a 

farm expense. It was not until the farming operation ended in 
- 290 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

2014 that Gottsch made such a request, and at that time, he 

told Wetzel that when she prepared the final accounting, rent 

on the land he owned “needed to be part of that equation.” In 

response, Wetzel made a list of all the property Gottsch owned 

“so he could establish what he wanted to charge for rent.” 

Wetzel testified that after she prepared the accounting in early 

2015, Gottsch was still “adjusting the rents that he thought he 

should charge on properties he owned.”

According to Wetzel, Kollars began working for Gottsch in 

2010 and all of Kollars’ W-2 wage and tax statements listed 

Gottsch as the employer. Kollars was instructed by Gottsch to 

call or text Wetzel each week to report what percentage of his 

work was attributable to the farming operation and what percentage was attributable to Gottsch’s other personal and business ventures. When Kollars did not contact Wetzel to report 

his percentages for the week, she would automatically attribute 

all of Kollars’ time to the farming operation.

In 2014, Kollars gave Wetzel no information about how his 

work should be allocated, so Wetzel attributed all of Kollars’ 

earnings as an expense of the farming operation. Wetzel’s 

records also attributed a portion of Kollars’ earnings in 2010 

through 2013 to the farming operation, but the records did 

not include an hourly breakdown, and Wetzel had no personal 

knowledge of how much time Kollars actually devoted to the 

farming operation. From 2010 through 2014, the total amount 

of Kollars’ earnings expensed to the farming operation was 

$208,452.64.

4. District Court’s Fi

(a) Claims Not Time Barred

The district court rejected Gottsch’s contention that any of 

Weyh’s claims were time barred. It found the parties intended 

the farming operation to be ongoing until one or both of them 

decided to end it, at which time they would settle up and divide 

net profits equally. The court found that while the farming 

operation was ongoing, the parties did not distribute “draws” 

on any regular basis and that there was no agreement to do 
- 291 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

so. Nor was there any agreement to settle up after each crop 

year. The court thus reasoned that Weyh’s claim for breach of 

contract did not accrue until late 2014, because that was the 

point at which the farming operation ended and it was time to 

settle up, and Gottsch failed to pay Weyh his share of the net 

profits. Because Weyh’s suit against Gottsch was filed just a 

few months after the claim accrued, the court found it was not 

time barred.

(b) Rent to Gottsch

On the issue of rent, the court stated “[t]he crux of the 

issue” was one of credibility, and it ultimately found “there 

was no credible evidence that the parties agreed [Gottsch] 

would charge rent for properties he owned that the farming 

operation farmed.” The court reasoned the parties’ course 

of conduct supported this finding, as it was undisputed that 

Gottsch unilaterally set the rent amounts for the majority of 

the farming years after the farming operation had ended and 

that Gottsch never sought input or agreement from Weyh on 

rent amounts during the course of the farming operation. The 

court thus concluded that rent to Gottsch was not part of the 

parties’ oral agreement and, consequently, entered a declaratory judgment that rent to Gottsch was not a proper expense of 

the farming operation.

(c) Kollars’ Earnings

The court found the evidence did not support including 

Kollars’ earnings as a farm expense. First, the court found 

the parties’ oral agreement did not include expensing Kollars’ 

earnings to the farming operation, finding it significant that 

Gottsch expressly told Weyh that Kollars’ time would not be 

expensed to the farming operation. Additionally, the court 

found that neither Gottsch nor Wetzel had firsthand knowledge 

of how much of Kollars’ work was actually devoted to the 

farming operation. That lack of knowledge, combined with 

admittedly incorrect information in the final accounting, left 

the court with “no way of knowing how many hours, if any, 
- 292 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

. . . Kollars worked for the farming operation, as opposed to 

for [Gottsch] personally.” The court found this failure of proof 

prevented Gottsch from claiming any portion of Kollars’ earnings as a farm expense for any farming year, and entered a 

declaratory judgment that Kollars’ earnings were not properly 

expensed to the farming operation.

(d) Breach of Contract

The court found that Gottsch breached the parties’ oral 

contract by failing to pay Weyh the full amounts owed to him 

when the operation ended and by providing an accounting 

that improperly listed rent to Gottsch and earnings to Kollars 

as expenses of the farming operation. Using the figures from 

Gottsch’s final accounting that Weyh had accepted, the court 

found the farming operation’s net profits were $3,418,113.45, 

and concluded Weyh was entitled to half this amount, less sums 

he had previously taken in “draws” over the years. Ultimately, 

the court determined Weyh was entitled to damages for breach 

of contract in the amount of $1,214,056.73. The court also 

found in Weyh’s favor on several other theories of recovery 

and awarded identical damages under each theory.

(e) Prejudgment Interest

Weyh’s original and amended complaints sought prejudgment interest, and in closing argument, Weyh suggested he 

was entitled to prejudgment interest under either of two theories: because his claim was liquidated under § 45-103.02(2) 

or because his claim fit within those described in § 45-104. 

Gottsch opposed an award of prejudgment interest, arguing 

it was not recoverable either because Weyh’s claim was not 

liquidated or because it would be too difficult to determine 

the date on which Weyh’s entitlement to prejudgment interest accrued.

The district court concluded Weyh was entitled to prejudgment interest “in the amount of 12% per annum under Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 45-104” and awarded $972,582.10 in prejudgment interest. The order does not explain how this amount 
- 293 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

was calculated, but it is clear the court relied exclusively on 

§ 45-104 in awarding prejudgment interest. It found that Weyh 

had met his burden of proof under § 45-104 by showing that 

Gottsch received, into his personal bank account, Weyh’s share 

of the net profits from the farming operation and retained such 

sums after they should have been paid to Weyh. In addressing prejudgment interest, the court’s order did not discuss 

§ 45-103.02(2) or make any findings as to whether Weyh’s 

claim was liquidated or unliquidated.

(f) Appeal and Petition to Bypass

Gottsch timely appealed and moved to bypass the Nebraska 

Court of Appeals, arguing this case presents an important 

and unresolved issue of statutory interpretation regarding 

the recoverability of prejudgment interest under Nebraska 

law. Weyh agrees, and both parties seek clarification regarding whether all prejudgment interest awards must satisfy 

§ 45-103.02, or whether an award of prejudgment interest may 

be based only on § 45-104.

In several prior appeals, parties have raised the issue of 

whether §§ 45-103.02(2) and 45-104 are separate and independent means of obtaining prejudgment interest or whether 

they are interrelated and, if so, how.1 But until now, the issue 

has been presented in cases where the facts did not satisfy 

one or both statutes and, consequently, the tension between 

§§ 45-103.02(2) and 45-104 has not been directly addressed 

by this court.2 We granted the petition to bypass to address 

that issue.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Gottsch assigns, consolidated and restated, that the district 

court erred in (1) finding the breach of contract claim accrued 

1 See, Brook Valley Ltd. Part. v. Mutual of Omaha Bank, 285 Neb. 157, 825 

N.W.2d 779 (2013); Fitzgerald v. Community Redevelopment Corp., 283 

Neb. 428, 811 N.W.2d 178 (2012); BSB Constr. v. Pinnacle Bank, 278 

Neb. 1027, 776 N.W.2d 188 (2009).

2 See id.
- 294 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

when the farming operation ended and was not time barred, (2) 

finding the parties had not agreed that rent to Gottsch or earnings to Kollars were proper expenses of the farming operation, 

(3) finding an agreement to charge rent on Gottsch’s property 

would violate the statute of frauds, (4) relying on evidence of 

the parties’ previous hunting operation, (5) excluding expert 

testimony offered by Gottsch, (6) finding in favor of Weyh on 

several other theories of recovery, (7) finding Weyh was entitled to prejudgment interest under § 45-104, and (8) improperly 

calculating prejudgment interest.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] In a bench trial of a law action, the trial court’s factual 

findings have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong.3

 But an appellate court 

independently reviews questions of law decided by a lower 

court.4

[2] The point at which a statute of limitations begins to run 

must be determined from the facts of each case, and the decision of the district court on the issue of the statute of limitations normally will not be set aside by an appellate court unless 

clearly wrong.5

[3] An action for declaratory judgment is sui generis; 

whether such action is to be treated as one at law or one 

in equity is to be determined by the nature of the dispute.6

When a dispute sounds in contract, the action is to be treated 

as one at law.7 An appellate court treats the determination of 

factual issues in such a declaratory judgment action which 

was tried without a jury in the same manner as any other 

action at law; accordingly, the findings of the trial court 

3 Donut Holdings v. Risberg, 294 Neb. 861, 885 N.W.2d 670 (2016). 

4 Id.

5 Hike v. State, 297 Neb. 212, 899 N.W.2d 614 (2017).

6 Wetovick v. County of Nance, 279 Neb. 773, 782 N.W.2d 298 (2010).

7 Spanish Oaks v. Hy-Vee, 265 Neb. 133, 655 N.W.2d 390 (2003).
- 295 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

have the effect of a verdict and will not be set aside unless 

clearly wrong.8

[4] Awards of prejudgment interest are reviewed de novo.9

[5] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law on 

which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the 

court below.10

IV. ANALYSIS

1. Preliminary Iss

In addition to finding in favor of Weyh on the theory of 

breach of contract, the court found in Weyh’s favor on several other theories and awarded identical damages under each. 

Gottsch’s sixth assignment of error challenges the district 

court’s findings with respect to the alternate theories of recovery, but it is not necessary to address that assignment, because, 

as we explain below, we affirm the district court’s judgment 

on the breach of contract theory.11 When addressing Gottsch’s 

remaining assignments of error, we focus our analysis on the 

breach of contract theory.

2. Statute of Limitations 

Breach of Cont

[6-8] An action upon an oral contract must be brought within 

4 years from the date of the event giving rise to the cause of 

action.12 The point at which a statute of limitations begins to 

run must be determined from the facts of each case, and the 

8 See Donaldson v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 232 Neb. 140, 440 N.W.2d 

187 (1989).

9 Blue Valley Co-op v. National Farmers Org., 257 Neb. 751, 600 N.W.2d 

786 (1999).

10 Diamond v. State, 302 Neb. 892, 926 N.W.2d 71 (2019).

11 See Woodmen of the World v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 299 Neb. 43, 907 

N.W.2d 1 (2018) (appellate court is not obligated to engage in analysis 

that is not necessary to adjudicate case and controversy before it).

12 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-206 (Reissue 2016).
- 296 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

decision of the district court on the issue of the statute of 

limitations normally will not be set aside by an appellate court 

unless clearly wrong.13 A cause of action in contract accrues at 

the time of breach or the failure to do the thing agreed to. This 

is so even though the nature and extent of damages may not be 

known.14 Generally, a cause of action accrues and the period 

of limitations begins to run upon the violation of a legal right, 

that is, when the aggrieved party has the right to institute and 

maintain suit.15

Here, the district court found that Weyh’s breach of contract 

claim accrued in late 2014 when the parties ended the farming 

operation, it was time to settle up, and Gottsch failed to pay 

Weyh his share of the net profits.

Gottsch argues the district court erred when it found 

Weyh’s breach of contract claim was not time barred. He 

suggests that Weyh’s cause of action for breach of contract 

accrued as early as 2006, when Gottsch provided Weyh the 

handwritten financial notes that included rent to Gottsch as 

a farm expense and arguably breached their oral agreement. 

Alternatively, he suggests that Weyh’s claim accrued as early 

as 2008, when Weyh first requested an accounting and did not 

receive it. Gottsch argues that either or both of these events 

triggered the statute of limitations and that because Weyh did 

not file suit until 2014, his claim for breach of contract is 

time barred.

Gottsch’s arguments presume that the parties’ oral agreement (1) required Gottsch to perform an accounting after each 

farming year or whenever requested by Weyh and (2) required 

the parties, each year, to distribute net profits based on such 

accounting. But this characterization of the parties’ agreement 

is not supported by either the record or the district court’s factual findings.

13 Hike, supra note 5.

14 Irving F. Jensen Co. v. State, 272 Neb. 162, 719 N.W.2d 716 (2006).

15 Id.
- 297 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

The court found the parties agreed to continue farming until 

one of them decided to end the operation, and it found their 

agreement did not require them to settle up at the end of each 

crop year. Implicit in these findings is recognition that the 

parties agreed to farm on a running account and to settle up 

when the operation ended. Substantial evidence in the record 

supports these findings, and we conclude they are not clearly 

wrong.

Because the parties’ agreement did not require Gottsch to 

provide a yearly accounting or to distribute net profits after 

each crop year while the farming operation was ongoing, the 

district court did not err in finding Weyh’s cause of action 

for breach of contract accrued in late 2014 when the farming 

operation ended and Weyh demanded a final accounting and 

payment of his share of the profits. Shortly thereafter, when 

Gottsch provided an accounting that included expenses Weyh 

claimed were outside their agreement, and then failed to pay 

Weyh the profits he was owed, Weyh’s claim for breach of 

the oral contract accrued and the limitations period began to 

run. Weyh filed this action in December 2014, well within the 

applicable statute of limitations. Gottsch’s first assignment of 

error is without merit.

3. Rent to Gott

Gottsch’s second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of 

error each pertain to the trial court’s finding that the parties’ 

oral agreement did not include rent to Gottsch. We find no 

merit to any of these assignments.

(a) Rent to Gottsch Not Part 

of Oral Agreement

[9,10] The disputed terms of an oral agreement are questions 

of fact,16 and in a bench trial of a law action, the trial court’s 

16 See, Gerhold Concrete Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 269 Neb. 692, 

695 N.W.2d 665 (2005); Edward Peterson Co. v. Ulysses S. Schlueter 

Constr. Co., 179 Neb. 883, 140 N.W.2d 830 (1966) (where evidence as to 

terms of oral contract is conflicting, it presents question of fact for jury).
- 298 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

factual findings have the effect of a jury verdict and will not 

be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong.17 Additionally, the 

trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses 

and the weight to be given their testimony. An appellate court 

will not reevaluate the credibility of witnesses or reweigh testimony but will review the evidence for clear error.18

The district court found no credible evidence the parties had 

agreed that the farming operation would pay rent to Gottsch 

on land he owned. Further, the district court found the parties’ course of conduct demonstrated there was no agreement 

to pay rent to Gottsch,19 noting the evidence was undisputed 

that (1) Gottsch never asked his bookkeeper to include rent 

as an expense while the farming operation was ongoing; (2) 

Gottsch unilaterally set the rent amounts after the crop year, 

and after the entire farming operation ended, without ever 

seeking input or agreement from Weyh; and (3) when the farming operation entered into lease agreements with third parties, 

it agreed to pay cash rent and never agreed to crop share in 

addition thereto.

Based on these factual findings, the district court entered 

a declaratory judgment that the parties’ oral agreement did 

not include rent on Gottsch’s property and that rent was not 

a proper expense of the farming operation. To the extent 

Gottsch’s second assignment of error challenges these findings, we conclude they are not clearly wrong and will not be 

disturbed on appeal.

In his third assignment of error, Gottsch challenges the 

district court’s alternative finding that an oral agreement to 

pay rent to Gottsch would have violated the statute of frauds. 

Because we find no error in the district court’s finding that 

rent to Gottsch was not part of the parties’ oral agreement, it 

17 See Donut Holdings, supra note 3.

18 In re Estate of Etmund, 297 Neb. 455, 900 N.W.2d 536 (2017).

19 See, generally, Tilt-Up Concrete v. Star City/Federal, 255 Neb. 138, 582 

N.W.2d 604 (1998).
- 299 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

is not necessary to address the assignment of error challenging 

the court’s alternative analysis regarding rent.20

(b) Evidence of Hunting Operation

In his fourth assignment, Gottsch contends the court erred 

in considering evidence of the parties’ hunting operation. 

He argues the hunting operation was so different from the 

farming operation that the court should not have relied on 

evidence of the hunting operation at all. This is essentially 

an argument that evidence of the hunting operation was irrelevant and thus inadmissible. But Gottsch did not object to the 

admission of this evidence at trial and thus has waived that 

argument.21

To the extent Gottsch’s argument turns instead on the weight 

given to such evidence, it also fails. In a bench trial of an 

action at law, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility 

of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. 

An appellate court will not reevaluate the credibility of witnesses or reweigh testimony but will review the evidence for 

clear error.22 We find no merit to Gottsch’s fourth assignment 

of error.

(c) Exclusion of Expert Testimony

In his fifth assignment of error, Gottsch argues the district court erred in excluding expert testimony from Richard 

Hickman. Hickman was described as an “expert in the area 

of land leases” who “does leases and negotiations for farming operations.” At trial, Gottsch made an offer of proof that, 

if permitted, Hickman would have testified that based on his 

financial calculations, Gottsch was assuming most of the risk of 

the farming operation, while Weyh assumed very little. Gottsch 

sought to offer Hickman’s testimony to show it was reasonable 

20 See Woodmen of the World, supra note 11.

21 See, Richardson v. Children’s Hosp., 280 Neb. 396, 787 N.W.2d 235 

(2010); Allphin v. Ward, 253 Neb. 302, 570 N.W.2d 360 (1997).

22 In re Estate of Etmund, supra note 18.
- 300 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

for him to include rent to himself as a farm expense. Weyh 

objected to the admission of Hickman’s testimony on grounds 

it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and the district court 

excluded the testimony.

[11,12] Generally, an appellate court reviews a trial court’s 

decision to exclude expert testimony for an abuse of discretion.23 In a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence 

is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced a substantial 

right of the complaining party.24

Having reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion 

in excluding Hickman’s testimony, whether or not it is characterized as expert testimony. The proffered evidence was cumulative, because the court already had, in the profit-and-loss 

statement, all the numbers necessary to make the mathematical 

calculations to which Hickman would have testified if permitted. The exclusion of cumulative evidence is not prejudicial to 

a litigant and generally is not an abuse of discretion.25

Moreover, we find no merit to Gottsch’s arguments that 

exclusion of the evidence resulted in prejudice to him. He 

argues the evidence was crucial to understanding why rent to 

him “should be included”26 in the parties’ agreement. But the 

district court was not tasked with determining what the parties 

should have agreed to, it was tasked with determining what 

the parties actually agreed to. We find no merit to Gottsch’s 

fifth assignment of error.

4. Kollars’ Ear

Gottsch’s second assignment of error challenges the district court’s finding that Kollars’ earnings were not a proper 

23 See Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 300 Neb. 47, 911 N.W.2d 591 

(2018).

24 In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237, 872 N.W.2d 37 (2015); Arens v. 

NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

25 See O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109, 903 N.W.2d 432 

(2017).

26 Brief for appellant at 26.
- 301 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

expense of the farming operation. This factual finding was 

based in part on evidence that Gottsch expressly told Weyh 

that Kollars’ time would not be expensed to the farming operation, and in part was based on a failure of proof as to how 

much of Kollars’ work was actually devoted to the farming 

operation during any farming year. As already explained, we 

will not disturb these factual findings unless they are clearly 

wrong.27

On the record before us, we conclude the district court’s 

findings regarding Kollars’ earnings were not clearly wrong. 

There is no merit to this assignment of error.

5. Award of Prejudgment 

In his seventh assignment of error, Gottsch argues the district court erred in awarding Weyh prejudgment interest under 

§ 45-104. In Nebraska, there are two statutes that authorize 

recovery of prejudgment interest. The first, § 45-104, was 

enacted in 1879, and the second, § 45-103.02, was enacted in 

1986 and amended in 1994.

Since its adoption more than a century ago, § 45-104 has 

identified four types of claims—all contract based—under 

which prejudgment interest is allowed. When the Legislature 

enacted § 45-103.02 in 1986, it expanded the recovery of 

prejudgment interest to other types of claims too. The proper 

harmonization of §§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 lies at the center of 

this assignment of error. We begin with the plain language of 

each statute.

Section 45-104 provides:

Unless otherwise agreed, interest shall be allowed at 

the rate of twelve percent per annum on money due on 

any instrument in writing, or on settlement of the account 

from the day the balance shall be agreed upon, on money 

received to the use of another and retained without the 

owner’s consent, express or implied, from the receipt 

thereof, and on money loaned or due and withheld by 

27 See Donut Holdings, supra note 3.
- 302 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

unreasonable delay of payment. Unless otherwise agreed 

or provided by law, each charge with respect to unsettled 

accounts between parties shall bear interest from the date 

of billing unless paid within thirty days from the date 

of billing.

Section 45-103.02 currently provides:

(1) Except as provided in section 45-103.04, interest 

as provided in section 45-103 shall accrue on the unpaid 

balance of unliquidated claims from the date of the plaintiff’s first offer of settlement which is exceeded by the 

judgment until the entry of judgment if all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The offer is made in writing upon the defendant by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, to allow judgment 

to be taken in accordance with the terms and conditions 

stated in the offer;

(b) The offer is made not less than ten days prior to the 

commencement of the trial;

(c) A copy of the offer and proof of delivery to the 

defendant in the form of a receipt signed by the party or 

his or her attorney is filed with the clerk of the court in 

which the action is pending; and

(d) The offer is not accepted prior to trial or within 

thirty days of the date of the offer, whichever occurs first.

(2) Except as provided in section 45-103.04, interest 

as provided in section 45-104 shall accrue on the unpaid 

balance of liquidated claims from the date the cause of 

action arose until the entry of judgment.

Weyh’s amended complaint sought recovery of prejudgment interest on the breach of contract claim and asked that 

such interest be calculated from the date his share of the net 

profits should have been distributed.28 In his closing argument, Weyh claimed entitlement to prejudgment interest under 

28 See Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1108(a) (when interest on demand for recovery 

of money is claimed, “the time from which interest is to be computed shall 

also be stated”).
- 303 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

either § 45-103.02(2) or § 45-104. The district court awarded 

prejudgment interest under § 45-104, reasoning that over the 

course of the farming operation, Gottsch received Weyh’s 

share of the net proceeds and retained it in his personal bank 

accounts, and that once the farming operation ended and a 

final accounting was completed, Gottsch continued to retain 

Weyh’s share of the profits without Weyh’s consent. The court 

did not address § 45-103.02(2) or discuss whether the claim 

was liquidated.

On appeal, Gottsch contends the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest under § 45-104. He advances several 

arguments, all premised on the theory that once § 45-103.02 

was enacted, it became the exclusive means to recover prejudgment interest in Nebraska. Alternatively, Gottsch argues that to 

recover prejudgment interest, Weyh had to prove both that his 

claim was the type described in § 45-104 and that his claim 

was liquidated under § 45-103.02.

Weyh, on the other hand, argues that this court has not yet 

squarely addressed the interplay between §§ 45-103.02(2) and 

45-104, and he urges a construction that gives continuing effect 

to the plain language of both statutes. He asks us to hold that 

§§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 provide alternate methods for recovering prejudgment interest, and he suggests that nothing in the 

statutory language or legislative history of § 45-103.02 indicates it was intended to be the exclusive or preferred means for 

recovering prejudgment interest.

The unresolved tension between §§ 45-103.02(2) and 45-104 

is central to the parties’ arguments, and they are not the first 

litigants to grapple with the issue.29 Resolving that tension 

requires that we recognize, and reconcile, competing and contradictory lines of authority in our own jurisprudence.

We begin with an overview of our case law on prejudgment 

interest before the adoption of § 45-103.02. We then discuss 

29 See, e.g., cases cited supra note 1; Farm & Garden Ctr. v. Kennedy, 26 

Neb. App. 576, 921 N.W.2d 615 (2018) (petition for further review denied 

January 23, 2019).
- 304 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

the adoption and amendment of § 45-103.02 and consider 

the relevant legislative history. Finally, after summarizing our 

more recent cases on prejudgment interest, we address the 

parties’ arguments on the proper construction of §§ 45-103.02 

and 45-104.

(a) § 45-104

Long ago, this court observed, “The collection of interest is 

a statutory right, and did not exist at common law.”30 For more 

than a century, § 45-104 was the only statute authorizing the 

recovery of prejudgment interest in Nebraska. Yet, there are 

surprisingly few appellate decisions construing or analyzing 

the categories described in § 45-104. In fact, before 1994, most 

of this court’s opinions addressing prejudgment interest did not 

even mention § 45-104.

During that period, the overwhelming majority of our opinions addressing prejudgment interest focused exclusively on 

whether the plaintiff had presented a “liquidated claim” as that 

term was defined by this court, and did not mention § 45-104 

at all.31 Occasionally, our opinions would cite § 45-104 for the 

applicable interest rate, but would still decide the availability of 

prejudgment interest by analyzing only whether the claim was 

30 Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux, 59 Neb. 203, 206, 80 N.W. 824, 825 (1899).

31 See, A.G.A. Inc. v. First Nat. Bank, 239 Neb. 74, 474 N.W.2d 655 (1991); 

Otto Farms v. First Nat. Bank of York, 228 Neb. 287, 422 N.W.2d 331 

(1988); Nixon v. Harkins, 220 Neb. 286, 369 N.W.2d 625 (1985); Aetna 

Cas. & Surety Co. v. Nielsen, 217 Neb. 297, 348 N.W.2d 851 (1984), 

overruled on other grounds, First Nat. Bank v. Bolzer, 221 Neb. 415, 377 

N.W.2d 533 (1985); Land Paving Co. v. D. A. Const. Co., 215 Neb. 406, 

338 N.W.2d 779 (1983); Classen v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 214 Neb. 

543, 334 N.W.2d 644 (1983); Fleming Realty & Ins., Inc. v. Evans, 199 

Neb. 440, 259 N.W.2d 604 (1977); Frank McGill, Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 195 

Neb. 448, 238 N.W.2d 894 (1976); K & R, Inc. v. Crete Storage Corp., 194 

Neb. 138, 231 N.W.2d 110 (1975); Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Woodmen 

of the World Life Ins. Soc., 189 Neb. 30, 199 N.W.2d 729 (1972); National 

Fire Ins. Co. v. Evertson, 157 Neb. 540, 60 N.W.2d 638 (1953); McKain 

v. Platte Valley Public Power and Irrigation District, 151 Neb. 497, 37 

N.W.2d 923 (1949); Wittenberg, supra note 30.
- 305 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

liquidated.32 Because the plain language of § 45-104 has never 

included the term “liquidated,” this line of cases is best understood as having applied a traditional common-law rule allowing the recovery of interest as damages on liquidated claims,33

rather than applying the statutory categories of § 45-104.

In a second line of cases, we analyzed the availability of 

prejudgment interest by examining two factors: whether the 

claim was liquidated and whether the claim fell within one of 

the categories described in § 45-104.34 And in a third line of 

cases, we analyzed the availability of prejudgment interest by 

applying the categories described in § 45-104 without considering whether the claim was also liquidated.35

Until now, we have not discussed or attempted to reconcile 

these competing lines of authority.

(b) § 45-103.02

In 1986, the Legislature considered two separate bills seeking to establish a method for recovering prejudgment interest in tort cases,36 but only one bill advanced to general 

file.37 As originally introduced, L.B. 298 merely updated the 

rate of “interest on all decrees and judgments” in Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 45-103 (Reissue 1984). In other words, the original 

32 See, Knox v. Cook, 233 Neb. 387, 446 N.W.2d 1 (1989); Graff v. Burnett, 

226 Neb. 710, 414 N.W.2d 271 (1987); Bolzer, supra note 31; Church of 

the Holy Spirit v. Bevco, 215 Neb. 299, 338 N.W.2d 601 (1983); Philip G. 

Johnson & Co. v. Salmen, 211 Neb. 123, 317 N.W.2d 900 (1982); Abbott 

v. Abbott, 188 Neb. 61, 195 N.W.2d 204 (1972).

33 See, 1 Dan B. Dobbs, Dobbs Law of Remedies § 3.6(1) (2d ed. 1993); 

Charles T. McCormick, Handbook on the Law of Damages § 51 (1935).

34 See, Lease Northwest v. Davis, 224 Neb. 617, 400 N.W.2d 220 (1987); 

O’Keefe Elevator v. Second Ave. Properties, 216 Neb. 170, 343 N.W.2d 54 

(1984).

35 City of Bellevue v. Western Surety Co., 184 Neb. 678, 171 N.W.2d 772 

(1969); Fraser v. Temple, 173 Neb. 367, 113 N.W.2d 319 (1962); Murphy 

v. City of Omaha, 33 Neb. 402, 50 N.W. 265 (1891).

36 See 1986 Neb. Laws, L.B. 1232 and L.B. 298.

37 See L.B. 298, § 3.
- 306 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

bill related only to the rate of postjudgment interest. But it 

was amended on the floor to authorize recovery of judgment 

interest before the rendition of judgment when certain conditions were met. The amendment passed and was codified at 

§ 45-103.02.

As adopted, § 45-103.02 applied to “all causes of action 

accruing on or after January 1, 1987” and provided in relevant part:

[J]udgment interest shall also accrue on decrees and judgments for the payment of money from the date of the 

plaintiff’s first offer of settlement which is exceeded by 

the judgment until the rendition of judgment if all of the 

following conditions are met:

(1) The offer is made in writing upon the defendant by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, to allow judgment 

to be taken in accordance with the terms and conditions 

stated in the offer;

(2) The offer is made not less than ten days prior to the 

commencement of the trial;

(3) A copy of the offer and proof of delivery to the 

defendant in the form of a receipt signed by the party or 

his or her attorney is filed with the clerk of the court in 

which the action is pending; and

(4) The offer is not accepted prior to trial or within 

thirty days of the date of the offer, whichever occurs 

first.38

The legislative history indicates the purpose of § 45-103.02 

was to encourage settlement of tort cases by authorizing the 

recovery of prejudgment interest when a reasonable settlement 

demand was refused. But the language of § 45-103.02 as originally enacted was quite broad, and in Knox v. Cook,

39 this court 

construed the statutory preconditions in § 45-103.02 to apply to 

all claims for prejudgment interest.

38 Id.

39 Knox, supra note 32.
- 307 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

Knox was an action to recover on a personal guaranty for 

monthly rent payments. In addition to seeking past-due rent 

payments, the plaintiffs sought prejudgment interest on the basis 

that their claim was liquidated. This court agreed the claim for 

past-due rent was liquidated, but in Knox, we construed the plain 

language of § 45-103.02 to govern all claims for prejudgment 

interest accruing after January 1, 1987, regardless of whether 

the claim was liquidated or unliquidated. Because the plaintiff 

had not complied with the preconditions of § 45-103.02, Knox

reasoned that no prejudgment interest could be recovered on 

past-due rent accruing after the effective date of § 45-103.02. 

However, Knox allowed the plaintiff to recover prejudgment 

interest on past-due rent which had accrued during the 13-month 

period before § 45-103.02 went into effect, citing to our general 

rule that “‘[p]rejudgment interest is allowed where the amount 

of the claim is liquidated.’”40

The dissenting opinion in Knox, in which two justices 

joined, cautioned against construing § 45-103.02 to preclude 

recovery of prejudgment interest under § 45-104:

I dissent from that part of the majority opinion that 

seems to hold that compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 45-103.02 (Reissue 1988) is a prerequisite to the recovery of prejudgment interest in all situations. Rather, I 

would hold that the section is an addition to those cases 

where prejudgment interest is allowed pursuant to Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 45-104 (Reissue 1988).

The application of the conditions in § 45-103.02, specifically that of a greater recovery than demanded, will 

result in denial of justified prejudgment interest. If one 

demands a delinquent payment [in contract] and subsequently sues and recovers a judgment for the delinquent 

payment, prejudgment interest must be denied, since 

plaintiff’s first offer of settlement is “[not] exceeded by 

the judgment.”

40 Id. at 394, 446 N.W.2d at 5.
- 308 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

The result, I submit, is contrary to the plain intent of 

the statute, i.e., to encourage settlements, not to offer a 

boon to deadbeats.41

Eight years later, the Legislature amended § 45-103.02 via 

1994 Neb. Laws, L.B. 1183. Its stated goal in doing so was to 

overrule Knox.

42

L.B. 1183 sought to overrule Knox by creating two subsections: one authorizing prejudgment interest on “unliquidated 

claims” and the other authorizing prejudgment interest on “liquidated claims.” L.B. 1183 did not expressly define either term, 

but both are well defined in our case law.43

Subsection (1) retained all the procedural preconditions 

of § 45-103.02 as it was originally enacted, but made them 

applicable only to “unliquidated claims.” On such claims, prejudgment interest accrued at the rate established in § 45-103, 

from the date of the first settlement offer which is exceeded 

by the judgment to the entry of judgment.

Subsection (2) of § 45-103.02 added new provisions related 

exclusively to the recovery of prejudgment interest on the 

unpaid balance of “liquidated claims.” On such claims, prejudgment interest accrued “as provided in section 45-104,” 

from the date the cause of action arose to the entry of 

judgment.

L.B. 1183 did not expressly repeal or amend § 45-104. But 

Gottsch argues that when the Legislature amended § 45-103.02 

41 Id. at 395-96, 446 N.W.2d at 6 (emphasis supplied) (White, J., dissenting; 

Boslaugh and Fahrnbruch, JJ., join).

42 Committee on Banking, Commerce and Insurance Hearing, L.B. 1183, 93d 

Leg., 2d Sess. 64 (Feb. 8, 1994).

43 See, e.g., Brook Valley Ltd. Part., supra note 1, 285 Neb. at 172-73, 

825 N.W.2d at 792 (holding claim is liquidated “when there is no 

reasonable controversy as to both the amount due and the plaintiff’s right 

to recover”); Jacob v. Schlictman, 16 Neb. App. 783, 792-93, 753 N.W.2d 

361, 370 (2008) (holding where “reasonable controversy exists as to the 

plaintiff’s right to recover or as to the amount of such recovery, the claim 

is considered to be unliquidated”).
- 309 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

via L.B. 1183, it intended to establish § 45-103.02 as the 

exclusive procedure for recovering prejudgment interest in 

Nebraska. Weyh disagrees and argues that when the Legislature 

enacted and amended § 45-103.02, it intended to authorize 

additional ways to recover prejudgment interest, but did not 

intend to affect the existing method for recovering prejudgment 

interest under § 45-104. To the extent it informs this debate 

over legislative intent, we summarize the legislative history of 

L.B. 1183.44

The Committee on Banking, Commerce and Insurance held 

a hearing on L.B. 1183 in February 1994. During that hearing, senators repeatedly referred to the existing “case law” 

on the issue of prejudgment interest and liquidated claims, 

but they made no reference at all to § 45-104 or its statutory 

categories.45 Testimony from the committee hearing indicates 

the Legislature understood the law prior to Knox to be “you 

get prejudgment interest at the statutory rate on liquidated 

claims.”46 At one point during the committee hearing, an attorney testified that the purpose of the 1994 amendment was to 

put “in statute what prior to 1986 was in case law.”47 And a 

senator explained that before 1986, the case law defined what 

a liquidated claim was, and “we had statutes to set the interest rate.”48

These comments demonstrate an awareness of the primary 

line of cases from this court applying a traditional “liquidated 

claim” standard. However, senators did not mention the statutory categories in § 45-104 or the line of cases applying those 

44 See State v. McColery, 301 Neb. 516, 919 N.W.2d 153 (2018) (appellate 

court can examine act’s legislative history if statute is ambiguous or 

requires interpretation).

45 Committee on Banking, Commerce and Insurance Hearing, L.B. 1183, 93d 

Leg., 2d Sess. 64-71 (Feb. 8, 1994).

46 Id. at 64.

47 Id. at 71.

48 Id. at 67.
- 310 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

categories without analyzing whether the claim was liquidated. 

The Legislature was clearly aware § 45-104 existed, because 

it expressly incorporated the interest rate from § 45-104 into 

§ 45-103.02(2). But we see no indication in the legislative history that the Legislature considered the categories in § 45-104 

to be relevant to the discussion of prejudgment interest on liquidated claims under § 45-103.02(2).

The Legislative history on L.B. 1183, summarized, indicates the singular focus of amending § 45-103.02 in 1994 was 

to overrule Knox.

49 According to the floor debate, L.B. 1183 

was intended to “return[] us back to the state of affairs that 

would have pertained before Knox v. Cook.”50 The Legislature 

did so by clarifying that the statutory preconditions set out 

in § 45-103.02(1) govern the recoverability of prejudgment 

interest only when a claim is unliquidated. Subsection (2) 

governs the recovery of prejudgment interest on liquidated 

claims and contains no preconditions. The notable absence of 

any discussion in the legislative history of the contract-based 

categories in § 45-104 suggests the Legislature did not think 

L.B. 1183 had any effect on those statutory categories. With 

minor language adjustments, § 45-103.02 has remained the 

same since 1994.

(c) Post-1994 Cases

On several occasions after § 45-103.02 was amended in 

1994, this court adhered to the proposition first announced in 

Knox that prejudgment interest may be awarded only pursuant to § 45-103.02.51 None of these cases discussed whether 

§ 45-104 remained a viable alternate means to recover prejudgment interest.

49 See id. at 64.

50 Floor Debate, Committee on Banking, Commerce and Insurance, 93d Leg., 

2d Sess. 9954 (Mar. 3, 1994) (Senator Bob Wickersham).

51 See, e.g., Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148, 871 N.W.2d 

776 (2015); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. International Nutrition, 273 Neb. 

943, 734 N.W.2d 719 (2007); Blue Valley Co-op, supra note 9.
- 311 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

In another line of cases, we analyzed the recoverability of 

prejudgment interest by considering both § 45-103.02(2) and 

§ 45-104,52 and we affirmed the award of prejudgment interest only when the claim was the type described in § 45-104 

and was also liquidated under § 45-103.02(2).53 The Court of 

Appeals recently followed a similar approach in affirming an 

award of prejudgment interest.54

Not surprisingly, litigants continue to debate whether 

§ 45-103.02 is the exclusive means to recover prejudgment 

interest, whether §§ 45-104 and 45-103.02 authorize separate ways to recover prejudgment interest, and whether both 

§ 45-103.02(2) and § 45-104 must be satisfied to recover prejudgment interest on a liquidated claim.55 Several prior cases 

raised questions about the proper framework for analyzing prejudgment interest under §§ 45-103.02(2) and 45-104, but it was 

not necessary in those cases to answer the question, because 

the claims did not satisfy either § 45-103.02(2) or § 45-104.56

As we explained in a 2013 case:

The parties dispute the proper legal framework for 

addressing the award of prejudgment interest. The appellants contend that §§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 are not alternate routes to recover prejudgment interest, but that the 

[liquidated claim requirement of § 43-403.02(2)] must 

be met regardless whether the case is a type enumerated 

in § 45-104. The [appellees], on the other hand, contend that §§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 are alternate routes 

to recover prejudgment interest and that if the case is a 

52 See, e.g., Cheloha v. Cheloha, 255 Neb. 32, 582 N.W.2d 291 (1998); 

Daubman v. CBS Real Estate Co., 254 Neb. 904, 580 N.W.2d 552 (1998).

53 Id.

54 Farm & Garden Ctr. v. Kennedy, 26 Neb. App. 576, 921 N.W.2d 615 

(2018).

55 See, e.g., cases cited supra note 1.

56 See, Fitzgerald, supra note 1; BSB Constr., supra note 1.
- 312 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

type enumerated in § 45-104, whether [it is liquidated] 

is irrelevant.

We see no need to resolve this issue because we conclude this case is not a type enumerated under § 45-104. 

So regardless which approach is correct, whether prejudgment interest is proper depends on whether this case presented a [liquidated claim under § 45-103.02(2)].57

The instant case, however, allows us to resolve the debate 

over whether §§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 provide alternate routes 

to recover prejudgment interest, because Weyh’s claim is the 

type described in § 45-104, and Gottsch does not contend 

otherwise.

Section 45-104 applies to four types of judgments: (1) 

money due on any instrument in writing; (2) settlement of the 

account from the day the balance shall be agreed upon; (3) 

money received to the use of another and retained without the 

owner’s consent, express or implied, from the receipt thereof; 

and (4) money loaned or due and withheld by unreasonable 

delay of payment.58

We agree with the district court that Weyh proved a claim 

under § 45-104 for money received to the use of another and 

retained without the owner’s consent. The evidence showed 

that Gottsch received, in his personal bank account, Weyh’s 

share of the net profits from the farming operation and retained 

such sums without Weyh’s consent after the farming operation ended.

(d) Framework for Prejudgment Interest 

Under §§ 45-103.02(2) and 45-104

As noted, in arguing the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest under § 45-104, Gottsch presents 

two related arguments. First, he argues that § 45-103.02 is 

the exclusive means for recovering prejudgment interest and 

57 Brook Valley Ltd. Part., supra note 1, 285 Neb. at 171, 825 N.W.2d at 791.

58 See Brook Valley Ltd. Part., supra note 1.
- 313 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

that recovery cannot be premised exclusively on § 45-104. 

Alternatively, he argues that to recover prejudgment interest, 

Weyh must satisfy both § 45-103.02 and § 45-104. We reject 

both arguments.

[13,14] When an appellate court construes statutes relating 

to the same subject matter, it should do so in a manner that 

maintains a sensible and consistent scheme and gives effect 

to every statutory provision.59 It is not within the province 

of a court to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted by the language; neither is it within the province of a 

court to read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous out of 

a statute.60

After considering the plain language of the relevant statutes 

and reviewing our multiple lines of cases and the legislative 

history, we expressly disapprove of our prior cases holding or implying that § 45-103.02 is the exclusive means of 

recovering prejudgment interest in Nebraska.61 Nothing in the 

plain language of § 45-103.02, and nothing in the relevant 

Legislative history, supports such a conclusion. To the contrary, 

the Legislative history suggests the adoption and amendment 

of § 45-103.02 were not intended to have any effect on the 

substantive provisions of § 45-104.

[15] We now hold that §§ 45-103.02 and 45-104 are alternate and independent statutes authorizing the recovery of 

59 See TracFone Wireless v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 279 Neb. 426, 778 

N.W.2d 452 (2010).

60 In re Estate of Fuchs, 297 Neb. 667, 900 N.W.2d 896 (2017).

61 Roskop Dairy, supra note 51; Countryside Co-op v. Harry A. Koch 

Co., 280 Neb. 795, 790 N.W.2d 873 (2010); Travelers Indemnity Co., 

supra note 51; Blue Valley Co-op, supra note 9; Cheloha, supra note 

52; Daubman, supra note 52; Pantano v. McGowan, 247 Neb. 894, 530 

N.W.2d 912 (1995); Label Concepts v. Westendorf Plastics, 247 Neb. 

560, 528 N.W.2d 335 (1995); Records v. Christensen, 246 Neb. 912, 524 

N.W.2d 757 (1994); Peterson v. Kellner, 245 Neb. 515, 513 N.W.2d 517 

(1994); Sayer v. Bowley, 243 Neb. 801, 503 N.W.2d 166 (1993); Elson v. 

Pool, 235 Neb. 469, 455 N.W.2d 783 (1990); Knox, supra note 32.
- 314 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

prejudgment interest. In other words, the Legislature has created three separate ways to recover prejudgment interest, and 

none is preferred. Section 45-103.02(1) authorizes the recovery of prejudgment interest on unliquidated claims when the 

statutory preconditions are met, § 45-103.02(2) authorizes the 

recovery of prejudgment interest on liquidated claims, and 

§ 45-104 authorizes the recovery of prejudgment interest on 

four categories of contract-based claims without regard to 

whether the claim is liquidated or unliquidated.

All three of these statutory provisions establish different criteria for the recovery of prejudgment interest, and none makes 

the recovery of prejudgment interest contingent on proof of 

another. We thus disapprove of our prior cases that allowed 

prejudgment interest only if § 45-104 was satisfied and the 

claim was also liquidated,62 and we reject Gottsch’s argument that Weyh can only recover prejudgment interest under 

§ 45-104 if he also proves his claim was liquidated under 

§ 45-103.02(2).

[16] Finally, although Weyh and Gottsch disagree about 

whether Weyh’s claim is liquidated as that term is defined in 

our case law, we do not reach that question. Section 45-104 

contains no requirement that the claims described therein 

must also be liquidated in order to recover prejudgment interest, and it never has. We expressly approve our prior line of 

cases applying the substantive provisions of § 45-104 without 

considering whether the claim was liquidated,63 and we reject 

Gottsch’s argument to the contrary. For the sake of completeness, we see no need to approve or disapprove the line of cases 

in which we substituted a traditional liquidated claim rule for 

the substantive provisions of § 45-104. When the Legislature 

adopted § 45-103.02(2) in 1994, it effectively codified that 

line of cases.

62 See cases cited supra note 34.

63 See cases cited supra note 35.
- 315 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

We thus agree that Weyh was entitled to an award of prejudgment interest under § 45-104 without regard to whether 

his claim was liquidated. Gottsch’s seventh assignment of error 

has no merit.

6. Calculating Prejudgment

In his final assignment of error, Gottsch argues that even 

if Weyh is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest under 

§ 45-104, the amount awarded by the district court was erroneous. Based on our de novo review,64 we agree, and we recalculate the award accordingly.

The district court’s order awarded prejudgment interest of 

$972,582.10 “as of October 31, 2017” (date of closing argument), but did not identify the date prejudgment interest commenced or provide analysis of how prejudgment interest was 

calculated. We consider each issue in turn.

(a) Start Date

The district court found that after the farming operation 

ended and it was time to settle up, Gottsch retained Weyh’s 

share of the net profits without Weyh’s consent. Consequently, 

the court applied that portion of § 45-104 which allows prejudgment interest “on money received to the use of another 

and retained without the owner’s consent.” Section 45-104 

provides that on such a claim, prejudgment interest runs “from 

the receipt thereof.” In construing this provision, we have held 

that interest is chargeable at the statutory rate “from the time 

that the money is wrongfully withheld.”65

Based on the amount of prejudgment interest awarded, the 

district court appears to have awarded interest beginning sometime before 2014. But under the parties’ agreement, Gottsch 

was not required to settle up until the farming operation ended. 

In other words, the parties generally agreed to operate on a 

64 See Blue Valley Co-op, supra note 9.

65 Cheloha, supra note 52, 255 Neb. at 43, 582 N.W.2d at 300.
- 316 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

running account until such time as the farming operation was 

terminated. Consequently, Gottsch could not have retained 

Weyh’s money without his consent until after the farming operation ended and it was time to settle up and distribute Weyh’s 

share of the net profits.66

But the record here does not identify that date with precision. There was evidence that Weyh demanded a final accounting in a letter dated October 15, 2014, but he did not also 

demand final distribution in that letter. Because we have not 

been directed to evidence of any earlier date on which Weyh 

demanded distribution of his share of the net profits, we use 

the date Weyh filed his initial complaint, December 4, 2014, 

as the date on which prejudgment interest began to accrue 

under § 45-104.

(b) End Date

The trial court ended prejudgment interest on the date 

the parties delivered closing arguments and the case was 

taken under advisement, rather than on the date judgment was 

entered. Section 45-104 identifies the accrual date, but unlike 

§ 45-103.02, § 45-104 does not expressly provide that such 

interest stops accruing when judgment is entered. However, 

the statute governing postjudgment interest compels such a 

construction.

[17] Postjudgment interest is governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 45-103.01 (Reissue 2010) and provides that such interest begins to accrue “from the date of entry of judgment.” 

Construing § 45-103.01 and § 45-104 together, we hold that 

prejudgment interest under § 45-104 ends, and postjudgment 

interest begins, on the date of entry of judgment. Here, judgment was entered on January 31, 2018, and that is the proper 

end date for an award of prejudgment interest under § 45-104.

66 See 25 Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts by Samuel 

Williston § 66:112 (4th ed. 2002) (on running account, prejudgment 

interest will not run until balance is struck and demand is made).
- 317 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

WEYH v. GOTTSCH

Cite as 303 Neb. 280

(c) Calculation

The district court determined that Gottsch owed Weyh net 

profits of $1,214,056.73. Under § 45-104, prejudgment interest on that amount is chargeable at the rate of 12 percent per 

annum from the date the profits were wrongfully withheld 

(December 4, 2014), to the entry of judgment on January 31, 

2018. We therefore modify the prejudgment interest awarded to 

$460,210.66 ($1,214,056.73 × 12 percent × 1,153 days ÷ 365 

days per year).

We therefore find that Weyh is entitled to $460,210.66 in 

prejudgment interest, and modify the award accordingly.

V. CONCLUSION

Weyh’s cause of action for breach of contract did not accrue 

until October 2014, and the district court correctly found the 

action was not time barred. Further, the district court did not 

err in finding that neither rent to Gottsch nor Kollars’ salary was properly included as expenses of the farming operation. The court’s award of damages to Weyh in the sum of 

$1,214,056.73 is affirmed.

Prejudgment interest was properly awarded pursuant 

to § 45-104, but was incorrectly calculated. We modify the 

amount of prejudgment interest to $460,210.66, and affirm the 

judgment as modified.

Affirmed as modified