- 904 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

Steven E. Clason, appellant, v. LOL Investments, 

LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company, and 

Producers Livestock Credit Corporation, 

a Delaware corporation, appellees.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 9, 2021. No. S-20-667.

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

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

matter of law.

2. Actions: Parties: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. One may bring an 

appeal pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) (Reissue 2016) only 

when (1) multiple causes of action or multiple parties are present, (2) 

the court enters a final order within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2020) as to one or more but fewer than all of the 

causes of action or parties, and (3) the trial court expressly directs the 

entry of such final order and expressly determines that there is no just 

reason for delay of an immediate appeal.

3. Claims: Parties: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. In the absence of 

an express determination that there is no just reason for delay upon an 

express direction for the entry of judgment, orders, however designated, 

adjudicating fewer than all claims or the rights of fewer than all the 

parties are not final. Absent an entry of judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1315 (Reissue 2016), no appeal will lie unless all claims have been 

disposed as to all parties in the case.

Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, 

Pirtle, Chief Judge, and Riedmann and Arterburn, Judges, 

on appeal thereto from the District Court for Furnas County, 

James E. Doyle IV, Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals 

affirmed.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

05/28/2021 08:10 AM CDT
- 905 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

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

appellant.

James H. Dodson, of Dodson & Dodson, for appellee LOL 

Investments, LLC.

Jason B. Bottlinger, of Bottlinger Law, L.L.C., for appellee 

Producers Livestock Credit Corporation.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Miller-Lerman, J.

NATURE OF CASE

Steven E. Clason filed notice of his intent to appeal the order 

of the district court for Furnas County which denied his request 

to quiet title to certain property in his name and instead quieted 

title in the name of Producers Livestock Credit Corporation 

(PLCC). The Nebraska Court of Appeals determined that the 

district court’s order was not appealable because the district 

court had not yet disposed of all the counterclaims set forth in 

PLCC’s answer, and the Court of Appeals dismissed Clason’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We granted Clason’s petition 

for further review. We affirm the order of the Court of Appeals 

which dismissed the appeal.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Clason owned farm real estate (the property) located in 

Furnas County. Clason took out agricultural loans that were 

secured by a deed of trust on the property. After a series of 

assignments, the deed of trust was held by LOL Investments, 

LLC. Clason defaulted on his debt payments, and after giving 

the required notices, the deed trustee conducted a trustee’s sale 

on October 24, 2019. The property was sold to PLCC.

Clason refused to surrender the property to PLCC. On 

November 22, 2019, PLCC filed an action against Clason 

for forcible entry and detainer in the county court for Furnas 

County. On December 16, while PLCC’s action was still 
- 906 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

pending in county court, Clason filed the present action in the 

district court for Furnas County. The county court dismissed 

the action filed by PLCC on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction 

because of the pendency of the action filed by Clason in the 

district court.

In his complaint filed in the district court, Clason alleged 

that for various reasons, the trustee’s sale was invalid and the 

purported sale of the property to PLCC was void. Pursuant to 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,112 (Reissue 2016), Clason requested 

that the court enter an order quieting title to the property 

in him.

PLCC filed an answer and counterclaim in which it generally denied that the trustee’s sale was invalid. PLCC specifically denied that certain laws and regulations, which Clason 

had alleged were not followed, applied to the loans upon 

which Clason defaulted. PLCC also asserted various affirm

ative defenses, and it requested that Clason’s complaint 

be dismissed.

For its counterclaim, PLCC alleged that the trustee’s sale 

was valid and that PLCC was the legal owner of the property. 

PLCC set forth what it denominated as four “claims”: (1) to 

quiet title in PLCC; (2) for ejectment of Clason from the property; (3) for unjust enrichment, to which PLCC alleged it was 

entitled to the fair market rental value for Clason’s unlawful 

retention of the property since October 24, 2019, as well as 

real estate and occupation taxes PLCC had paid related to the 

property; and (4) for attorney fees pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-824 (Reissue 2016) on the basis that Clason’s action was 

frivolous and brought in bad faith.

PLCC thereafter filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which it asserted that it was entitled to judgment as 

a matter of law on Clason’s claim to quiet title and on its 

counterclaim to quiet title. PLCC requested an order quieting 

title to the property in favor of PLCC. LOL Investments filed 

a motion to dismiss Clason’s complaint as to it, alleging that 

Clason failed to state a claim against it.
- 907 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

The district court held a hearing on PLCC’s motion for 

partial summary judgment and LOL Investments’ motion to 

dismiss. On August 12, 2020, following the hearing, the court 

filed an order titled “Judgment and Decree Quieting Title” in 

which it concluded that PLCC was entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law on Clason’s complaint and on PLCC’s counterclaim to quiet title and that Clason’s complaint failed to state 

a claim against LOL Investments. The court therefore entered 

judgment in favor of PLCC and against Clason, dismissed 

Clason’s complaint with prejudice, and ordered that title in 

the property be quieted in PLCC, with Clason’s having no 

claim, right, title, or interest of any kind as to the property. On 

September 11, Clason filed a notice of his intent to appeal the 

August 12 order in which the court quieted title in PLCC.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on October 23, 2020. In its order, the Court of Appeals 

cited Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) (Reissue 2016) and stated 

that the August 12 order was not an appealable order “as there 

has yet to be a disposition of all of the claims set forth” in 

PLCC’s answer and counterclaim.

We granted Clason’s petition for further review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Clason claims that the Court of Appeals erred when it determined that the August 12, 2020, order was not a final, appealable order and when it therefore dismissed his appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual 

dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law. 

In re Estate of Larson, ante p. 240, 953 N.W.2d 535 (2021).

ANALYSIS

Clason claims that the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed his appeal. Clason contends that the district court’s 
- 908 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

August 12, 2020, order is appealable because the appeal was 

taken from an “order affecting a substantial right made during 

a special proceeding” within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2020). Clason also relies on cases, 

notably Peterson v. Damoude, 95 Neb. 469, 470, 145 N.W. 

847, 848 (1914), in which this court held, in the context of 

a partition proceeding, that “[a] judgment rendered upon the 

issue of title alone is a final judgment, from which appeal 

will lie, and which may be reviewed by this court while the 

partition proceedings are suspended.” He argues that the reasoning in the partition cases should apply here and that the 

order quieting title in this case is a final judgment that may be 

appealed even though other claims were pending at the time 

Clason took an appeal.

Without regard to Clason’s foregoiong arguments, we note 

that the Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal on the basis of 

§ 25-1315(1), which provides:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an 

action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or 

third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, 

the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to 

one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties 

only upon an express determination that there is no just 

reason for delay and upon an express direction for the 

entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, 

however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all 

the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all 

the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the 

claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of 

judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and 

liabilities of all the parties.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that although the August 12, 

2020, order resolved Clason’s claim to quiet title and PLCC’s 

counterclaim to quiet title, proceedings regarding PLCC’s 
- 909 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

other counterclaims in this case remained pending, and that 

therefore, the appellate court had not acquired jurisdiction. We 

agree with the dismissal of this appeal on the basis explained 

by the Court of Appeals.

We recently discussed the operation of § 25-1315(1) in TDP 

Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, 307 Neb. 795, 950 N.W.2d 

640 (2020).

[2,3] In TDP Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, we concluded that an order of partial summary judgment ordering 

restitution of property and resolving a claim for forcible entry 

and detainer was not appealable because other claims and 

counterclaims were not resolved and that in addition, no certification was made under § 25-1315. In reaching this conclusion, 

we stated, inter alia, that we did not need to determine whether 

the order of partial summary judgment was a final order under 

§ 25-1902 or a judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1301 

(Cum. Supp. 2018) because § 25-1315 was implicated and the 

district court did not certify the appeal as required by that statute. Paralleling the statute, we reasoned:

With the enactment of § 25-1315(1), one may bring an 

appeal pursuant to such section only when (1) multiple 

causes of action or multiple parties are present, (2) the 

court enters a final order within the meaning of § 25-1902 

as to one or more but fewer than all of the causes of 

action or parties, and (3) the trial court expressly directs 

the entry of such final order and expressly determines that 

there is no just reason for delay of an immediate appeal. 

In the absence of an express determination that there is 

no just reason for delay upon an express direction for the 

entry of judgment, orders, however designated, adjudicating fewer than all claims or the rights of fewer than 

all the parties are not final. Absent an entry of judgment 

under § 25-1315, no appeal will lie unless all claims have 

been disposed as to all parties in the case.

TDP Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, 307 Neb. at 807, 950 

N.W.2d at 649.
- 910 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

In this case, PLCC’s response raised multiple issues that it 

described as four separate “claims,” and the August 12, 2020, 

order disposed of only PLCC’s counterclaim to quiet title; 

PLCC’s “claims” for ejectment, unjust enrichment, and attorney fees were not addressed in the order. Similar to our analysis in TDP Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, in this case, we 

need not consider Clason’s argument that the August 12 order 

is a final order under § 25-1902. Even assuming that it is a 

final order for the reason urged by Clason, § 25-1315 does not 

permit appeal until either the remaining claims are resolved or 

the court enters judgment under § 25-1315, accompanied by an 

express determination that there is no just reason for delay of 

an appeal. We note that the district court in this case titled the 

order resolving title issues as a “Judgment and Decree Quieting 

Title.” Despite titling the order as a “judgment,” the order was 

not certified under § 25-1315, and without such determination, 

the “judgment” was not appealable in this case.

We also reject Clason’s arguments based on our case law 

regarding partition actions. Clason cites Peterson v. Damoude, 

95 Neb. 469, 145 N.W. 847 (1914), and other cases in which 

we have held that under certain circumstances, in a partition 

action that involves a dispute as to title, an order quieting 

title within the partition action is appealable as a final order 

even when additional issues regarding partitioning the property 

remain to be resolved. Clason argues that the reasoning used 

in the partition cases should be applied in this case and would 

lead to the conclusion that the order quieting title is appealable even though other issues remain to be resolved. We reject 

this argument.

In Peterson v. Damoude, 95 Neb. at 471, 145 N.W. at 848, 

this court recognized three classes of cases involving partition: 

(1) those “[w]here there is no controversy as to the ownership of the property in common and the right to partition, but 

the controversy is as to something relating to the partition 

. . . ”; (2) those where there is an issue “as to the method of 

partition, and at the same time a distinct issue as to the title 
- 911 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

and ownership of the property”; and (3) those “where everything depends upon the title and the nature of the title, and 

where, when that question is determined, the whole thing is 

determined.” This court further noted that in cases of the second class—those involving distinct issues as to the method of 

partition and as to the title and ownership—“the parties would 

have a right to have their title first tried and determined.” Id. 

If title is first tried and determined, “the order thereon would 

be a final order,” but if the parties do not ask to have title first 

determined and instead all issues are tried together, “the parties 

should be held to have waived their right to appeal before the 

partition is completed.” Id.

Clason generally argues that the procedure employed in this 

case was similar to that described in the second class of partition cases in Peterson v. Damoude, supra. Clason contends that 

the August 12, 2020, order quieting title should be appealable 

while other issues presented by the pleadings such as ejectment 

and unjust enrichment are still pending. However, Clason’s 

argument does not properly account for § 25-1315.

We examined the interplay between the Peterson v. Damoude

line of cases and § 25-1315 in Guardian Tax Partners v. Skrupa 

Invest. Co., 295 Neb. 639, 889 N.W.2d 825 (2017). In that 

case, we cited Peterson v. Damoude, supra, to state that

when a partition action involves a dispute over ownership 

or title as well as a dispute over the method of partition, 

the parties have a right to have title determined first, and, 

if they elect to do so, an order resolving only the title 

dispute is a final, appealable order.

Guardian Tax Partners v. Skrupa Invest. Co., 295 Neb. at 

644-45, 889 N.W.2d at 829. We noted that “partition actions 

are unique in that when title is contested, the action has two 

distinct stages: first, the title determination, and second, the 

division of the real estate, i.e., the ‘partition.’” Id. at 646, 

889 N.W.2d at 830. Based on this unique two-stage structure 

and on statutory and case law relevant to partition actions, 

we concluded that an order in which the district court had 
- 912 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

“resolved the first stage of this partition action and disposed of 

all matters in that stage” was a final order, even though issues 

of partition were still to be decided. Id.

We further considered “how the enactment of § 25-1315 

affects the rules for the appealability of orders in partition 

actions outlined in Peterson v. Damoude.” Guardian Tax 

Partners v. Skrupa Invest. Co., 295 Neb. at 647, 889 N.W.2d at 

831. We reasoned that “in enacting § 25-1315, the Legislature 

did not amend the partition statutes or attempt to change 

the effect of our prior jurisprudence” and that “[h]ad the 

Legislature intended to change the well-settled law governing 

finality of partition judgments and orders, it would have done 

so explicitly.” Guardian Tax Partners v. Skrupa Invest. Co., 

295 Neb. at 649, 889 N.W.2d at 832.

We concluded that § 25-1315 was not implicated in Guardian 

Tax Partners v. Skrupa Invest. Co., because there was not more 

than one cause of action present in that case. We noted that 

§ 25-1315 is implicated only where there are multiple causes 

of action or multiple parties and the court enters a final order 

as to one or more but fewer than all the causes of action or 

parties. We noted first that although there were multiple parties 

in the case, the district court order disposed of the title claims 

of all parties. We further determined that there was not more 

than one cause of action present in Guardian Tax Partners v. 

Skrupa Invest. Co. We based this determination largely on the 

unique two-stage structure of partition actions in which title 

may be contested. Although the action has two distinct stages, 

and a court may enter a final order at the conclusion of the first 

stage, the action remains a single cause of action.

The present case is not a partition action, and therefore, the 

reasoning of Peterson v. Damoude, 95 Neb. 469, 145 N.W. 847 

(1914), and its progeny does not apply. This was not a partition 

action in which issues regarding title arose. Instead, the present 

case is a quiet title action brought by Clason, wherein PLCC 

filed a counterclaim to quiet title in itself, as well as additional counterclaims for ejectment and unjust enrichment. We 
- 913 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

have not treated orders quieting title in other types of actions 

in the same way that we have treated them in partition cases. 

See Olsen v. Olsen, 248 Neb. 393, 534 N.W.2d 762 (1995) 

(determining that order quieting title to mineral claims was 

interlocutory and nonappealable when issues of accounting and 

damages were still pending). And we have not treated orders 

resolving title issues in ejectment actions as appealable when 

other issues related to ejectment remain to be determined. See 

Wicker v. Waldemath, 238 Neb. 515, 471 N.W.2d 731 (1991) 

(determining that order entered on jury verdict in ejectment 

case which involved dispute of title not final order when issue 

of rents and profits not yet resolved).

As stated above, in Guardian Tax Partners v. Skrupa 

Invest. Co., 295 Neb. 639, 646, 889 N.W.2d 825, 830 (2017), 

we stated that partition actions involving title determinations 

are “unique,” leading to the appealability of the title determination and the irrelevance of § 25-1315. Clason does not 

point us to any authority governing either ejectment or unjust 

enrichment which involves a title determination that recognizes such a structure. We find no reason to determine that 

the “partition involving title determination” structure is present in this case involving quiet title, and separately ejectment 

and unjust enrichment, and that therefore, appeals regarding quiet title in cases also involving ejectment or unjust 

enrichment are not authorized in the absence of certification 

under § 25-1315.

In the present case, the action began in the district court as 

Clason’s claim to quiet title, and PLCC responded by, inter 

alia, raising counterclaims. The August 12, 2020, order of partial summary judgment determined Clason’s quiet title claim 

and PLCC’s quiet title counterclaim. However, the order did 

not resolve PLCC’s counterclaims for ejectment and unjust 

enrichment, which were pending at the time Clason filed his 

appeal. Therefore, by reference to § 25-1315(1), the August 12 

order was not appealable until either all of PLCC’s counter

claims were resolved or the quiet title order was properly 
- 914 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

certified under § 25-1315(1). We therefore conclude that the 

Court of Appeals did not err when it dismissed this appeal 

based on § 25-1315.

For completeness, we comment on what PLCC designated as 

its fourth “claim” in which it sought attorney fees on the basis 

that Clason’s action to quiet title was frivolous and brought 

in bad faith. PLCC’s request is not a “claim” for purposes of 

§ 25-1315, but, rather, a request made pursuant to § 25-824(4), 

which provides in part:

The court shall assess attorney’s fees and costs if, upon 

the motion of any party or the court itself, the court finds 

that an attorney or party brought or defended an action or 

any part of an action that was frivolous or that the action 

or any part of the action was interposed solely for delay 

or harassment.

We have held that “when a motion for attorney fees under 

§ 25-824 is made prior to the judgment, the judgment will not 

become final and appealable until the court has ruled upon that 

motion.” Salkin v. Jacobsen, 263 Neb. 521, 527, 641 N.W.2d 

356, 361 (2002). See, also, Sulu v. Magana, 293 Neb. 148, 879 

N.W.2d 674 (2016). And we have determined that notices of 

appeal were not taken from a final, appealable order when the 

terms of the orders expressly reserved ruling on attorney fees 

sought under § 25-824 that were requested in a party’s responsive pleadings. See In re Guardianship & Conservatorship 

of Woltemath, 268 Neb. 33, 680 N.W.2d 142 (2004). In the 

August 12, 2020, order, the court did not explicitly reserve 

ruling on PLCC’s request for attorney fees under § 25-824, 

but PLCC had not requested a ruling on the “claim” in its 

motion for partial summary judgment. To the extent a ruling 

on the request for attorney fees was reserved and not implicitly 

denied in the August 12, 2020, order, compare Murray v. Stine, 

291 Neb. 125, 864 N.W.2d 386 (2015), the lack of a ruling on 

PLCC’s request for attorney fees would serve as a separate reason, independent of the operation of § 25-1315, that the August 

12 order was not appealable.
- 915 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

CLASON v. LOL INVESTMENTS

Cite as 308 Neb. 904

CONCLUSION

Based on § 25-1315(1), we conclude that the August 12, 

2020, order ruling on competing claims for quiet title was not 

appealable because not all of PLCC’s counterclaims have been 

resolved. Therefore, on further review, we affirm the order of 

the Court of Appeals which dismissed Clason’s appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction.

Affirmed.