Opinion ID: 4503320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: Summary Judgment A motion for summary judgment is to be granted “if the pleadings and the evidence admitted at the hearing show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”6 “The evidence that may be received on a motion for summary judgment includes depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits.”7 But, here, our bill of exceptions contains only Robert’s evidence. Kimberly’s evidence does not appear in the bill. [4,5] This court has stated on numerous occasions that a bill of exceptions is the only vehicle for bringing evidence before an appellate court; evidence which is not made a part of the bill of exceptions may not be considered.8 In 1959, we explained at length: “An affidavit used as evidence in the district court cannot be considered on an appeal of a cause to this court unless it is offered in evidence in the trial court and preserved in and made a part of the bill of exceptions. . . . The fact that an affidavit used as evidence in the district court was filed in the office of the clerk of the district court and made a part of the transcript is not important to a consideration and decision of an appeal in the cause to this court. If 4 Id. 5 Lombardo v. Sedlacek, 299 Neb. 400, 908 N.W.2d 630 (2018). 6 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1332(1) (Cum. Supp. 2018) (emphasis supplied). 7 Id. 8 See Gomez v. Gomez, 303 Neb. 539, 930 N.W.2d 515 (2019). - 974 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports BOHLING v. BOHLING Cite as 304 Neb. 968 such an affidavit is not preserved in a bill of exceptions, its existence or contents cannot be known by this court. . . . A judgment of the district court brought to this court for review is supported by a presumption of correctness and the burden is upon the party complaining of the action of the former to show by the record that it is erroneous. It is presumed that an issue decided by the district court was correctly decided. The appellant, to prevail in such a situation, must present a record of the cause which establishes the contrary. . . .9 This requirement is not new. In 1934, we set forth as “the settled law of this state” the principle that “error must affirm­ atively appear of record and that affidavits and other written documents used as evidence on a hearing in the district court cannot be considered by the [S]upreme [C]ourt unless they are made a part of the record by being embodied in a bill of exceptions.”10 There, we cited numerous cases, dating back to a case from 1886.11 The 1886 opinion, in turn, cited to many more cases, the earliest being from 1877.12 We have often recited the rule or variations thereof, but we have not explained its underlying rationale; at least, we have not done so recently. In 1963, we set forth one straightforward variation: “The bill of exceptions is the only vehicle for bringing evidence before the court on appeal.”13 To support that particular articulation, we cited an Alabama case.14 In that case, the Alabama Supreme Court stated that “[t]he bill of 9 Peterson v. George, 168 Neb. 571, 576-77, 96 N.W.2d 627, 631 (1959) (citations omitted). 10 Berg v. Griffiths, 127 Neb. 501, 502, 256 N.W. 44, 45 (1934). 11 See McMurtry v. State, 19 Neb. 147, 26 N.W. 915 (1886). 12 See Ray v. Mason, 6 Neb. 101 (1877). 13 Everts v. School Dist. No. 16, 175 Neb. 310, 315, 121 N.W.2d 487, 490 (1963). 14 See Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Wiggins, 238 Ala. 424, 191 So. 470 (1939). - 975 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports BOHLING v. BOHLING Cite as 304 Neb. 968 exceptions, as it appears, in the record is all that the court can or will consider.”15 For that proposition, the Alabama Supreme Court relied upon Pearce v. Clements.16 In Pearce, the Alabama Supreme Court began by stating that “[b]ills of exceptions are the mere creatures of statute, being entirely unknown to the common law . . . .”17 It described its precedent of interpreting the strict procedures of a bill of exceptions and discussed the necessary production of evidence, stating: A record is something which is proved by its mere production and inspection, whether of the original or of a copy, and nothing can be construed to be a part of it, which does not appear, on the face of it, to be such, without the aid of oral evidence, explanatory of clerical errors which may have crept into such judicial proceedings, whether errors of omission or errors of commission.18 The Pearce court concluded that these principles applied with equal force to bills of exceptions, where the law has placed several exacting safeguards around the execution of a bill of exceptions. Likewise, a bill of exceptions in Nebraska is a creature of statute.19 And it is one with ancient origins.20 We have engaged in this extended discussion to explain why we adhere to the “settled law” and the statutory basis compelling our fidelity. [6,7] Kimberly’s request for judicial notice did not circumvent the necessity of presenting evidence in a bill of exceptions. Papers requested to be judicially noticed must be marked, identified, and made a part of the bill of exceptions.21 15 Id. at 427, 191 So. at 472. 16 Pearce v. Clements, 73 Ala. 256 (1882). 17 Id. at 257 (emphasis in original). 18 Id. at 258 (emphasis in original). 19 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1140 (Reissue 2016). 20 See 1877 Neb. Laws, § 2, p. 11. 21 See In re Estate of Radford, 297 Neb. 748, 901 N.W.2d 261 (2017). - 976 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports BOHLING v. BOHLING Cite as 304 Neb. 968 The will and Kimberly’s affidavits were not included in the bill of exceptions; thus, they are not properly before us. But this should not be read to suggest that offering an exhibit is a proper occasion for the exercise of judicial notice. Judicial notice of an adjudicative fact is a species of evidence.22 We do not read the colloquy between Kimberly’s counsel and the court as a true request for judicial notice of an adjudicative fact, but, rather, as an unauthorized substitute for the proper method of making an evidentiary record. Similarly, the presence of the proffered will and Kimberly’s proposed affidavits in the transcript does not bring them before us as evidence. As we recited above, the fact that an affidavit used as evidence in the district court was filed in the office of the clerk of the district court and made a part of the transcript is not important to a consideration and decision of an appeal in the cause to this court. If such an affidavit is not preserved in a bill of exceptions, its existence or contents cannot be known by this court.23 [8] So, on appeal, we confront a bill of exceptions that contains only Robert’s evidence. But the absence of Kimberly’s evidence is not attributable to any fault on Robert’s part. Kimberly failed to have her exhibits properly marked and received. And the district court acquiesced in the improper procedure. A party moving for summary judgment makes a prima facie case for summary judgment by producing enough evidence to demonstrate that the movant is entitled to judgment if the evidence were uncontroverted at trial.24 Because Kimberly was the moving party, she bore the burden to prove a prima facie case. And because Kimberly did not produce her evidence in a manner so as to be included in a bill of exceptions, she effectively failed to make a prima facie case. Accordingly, the 22 Id. 23 Peterson v. George, supra note 9. 24 Kaiser v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 303 Neb. 193, 927 N.W.2d 808 (2019). - 977 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports BOHLING v. BOHLING Cite as 304 Neb. 968 summary judgment must be reversed and the cause must be remanded for further proceedings. § 6-1526 [9] Robert argues that because Kimberly failed to file an evidence index and an annotated statement of undisputed facts, her motion for summary judgment should have been denied for failure to comply with § 6-1526. An appellate court may, at its discretion, discuss issues unnecessary to the disposition of an appeal where those issues are likely to recur during further proceedings.25 Although it is not necessary to the disposition of this appeal, we discuss § 6-1526 because it is likely to recur upon remand. The rule was prompted by legislative action. In 2017, the Legislature amended the summary judgment statutes to “require[] a party to provide citations to the record to support its assertion that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed.”26 It did so by amending § 25-1332. In response, we adopted § 6-1526 in 2018. This rule provides specific procedures to carry out the purpose of the statutory amendment. In order to accomplish the legislative goal of judicial economy, § 6-1526 was crafted for three reasons. First, it benefits parties by making the parties’ respective claims as to undisputed or disputed facts clear and precise. Second, it serves both trial and appellate courts by exposing the precise claims of the parties. The parties’ briefs are not an effective substitute for an evidence index and an annotated statement of undisputed or disputed facts. A judge should not have to scour through a party’s brief to identify factual claims that are intermixed with legal arguments. Third, it was adopted to focus the parties and the court on the specific factual contentions. 25 In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764, 891 N.W.2d 109 (2017). 26 Ecker v. E & A Consulting Group, 302 Neb. 578, 583, 924 N.W.2d 671, 676 (2019). See, also, 2017 Neb. Laws, L.B. 204. - 978 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports BOHLING v. BOHLING Cite as 304 Neb. 968 Trial courts should have some discretion to adapt procedures to the needs of a particular case, and an appellate court will not intervene except where the discretion is abused. But trial courts should not condone a party’s failure to follow § 6-1526 merely because the party finds it inconvenient or unfamiliar. There is a systemic value to the prompt and inexpensive resolution of disputes. Section 6-1526 should not be lightly ignored. We encourage district courts to set deadlines in compliance with the rule and require parties to submit necessary materials.