Opinion ID: 8065934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: conclusion

Text: For the reasons set forth herein, the order of the district court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 22 Id. 23 See Horton v. State, 63 Neb. 34, 88 N.W. 146 (1901) (holding court has discretion to vacate and set aside plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal). Cassel, J., dissenting. The key question, it seems to me, is whether a previous order granting a partial summary judgment precludes a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing an entire action as a matter of right with the acquiescence of the defendant. Because I conclude that it does not, I would affirm the district court’s order. The dismissal was patently clear. It was entitled “Dismissal Without Prejudice.” I quote its body in full: “COMES NOW - 13 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports SCHAAF V. SCHAAF Cite as 312 Neb. 1 the [copersonal representatives], by and through counsel, and hereby dismisses the above‑captioned matter, without prejudice, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25‑601 [(Reissue 2016)].” (Emphasis in original.) The copersonal representatives’ complaint had asserted three causes of action against Tommy B. Schaaf and Susan M. Schaaf. One claimed that they unduly influenced Lorene M. Schaaf to deed four parcels of real estate to them in February 2009. Another alleged that they unduly influenced her to deed another tract of real estate in September 2014. And the third claimed that the two deeds were induced by their fraudulent representations. In May 2018, Tommy and Susan moved for summary judgment on all claims. In July, the court denied their motion in all but one respect; it granted summary judgment on the fraud‑in‑the‑inducement claim, but only as to the February 2009 deed. In other words, the court denied summary judgment except as to part of a single claim. Shortly thereafter, in search of a more favorable forum in county court, the copersonal representatives filed their dismissal in district court. A few days later, the district court entered an order characterizing the dismissal as a “motion” and stating in relevant part: “Motion granted, and complaint dismissed without prejudice. Each party ordered to pay their own costs.” Tommy and Susan did not resist the dismissal or seek to preserve any aspect of the order partially granting summary judgment. In February 2019, after apparently concluding that the county court was not a better forum, the copersonal represent­ atives sought to vacate the district court’s order of dismissal in order to resume their litigation there. Tommy and Susan resisted. Over their objection, the district court initially reinstated the complaint. Later, the court recognized the effect of the prior unilateral dismissal pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25‑601 (Reisue 2016). - 14 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports SCHAAF V. SCHAAF Cite as 312 Neb. 1 Nebraska statutes have always permitted a plaintiff to dismiss an action without prejudice to a future action “before the final submission of the case to the jury, or to the court, where the trial is by the court.” 1 After final submission, a plaintiff must obtain leave of the court to dismiss an action without prejudice. 2 Long ago, this court recognized that there is an obvious danger in allowing dismissal as a matter of right after submission to the court. The danger is that “litigation would become interminable, because a party who was led to suppose a decision would be adverse to him could prevent such decision and begin anew, thus subjecting the defendant to annoying and contin­ uous litigation.” 3 And “it would be a reproach to our judicial system to permit a defeated litigant to abandon his case and sue again, thus harassing the defendant and wasting money raised by taxation for public purposes.” 4 This court has stated that a plaintiff “‘has an absolute right to dismiss’” an action prior to final submission, subject to compliance with conditions precedent as may be imposed by the court. 5 This court has called it “an unqualified right” that can be exercised “without leave of court.” 6 On the other hand, this court has declared that a plaintiff’s right to voluntary dismissal is not absolute, whether sought before or after final submission. 7 1 Rev. Stat. ch. 1 § 430, p. 465 (1866). Cf. § 25‑601. See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25‑602 (Cum. Supp. 2020). 2 See State v. Scott, 22 Neb. 628, 36 N.W. 121 (1888). 3 Id. at 640, 36 N.W. at 126. 4 Bee Building Co. v. Dalton, 68 Neb. 38, 42, 93 N.W. 930, 931 (1903). 5 Plattsmouth Loan & Bldg. Ass’n v. Sedlak, 128 Neb. 509, 512, 259 N.W. 367, 369 (1935). 6 Werner v. Werner, 186 Neb. 558, 559‑60, 184 N.W.2d 646, 647 (1971). 7 See, Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713, 592 N.W.2d 894 (1999); Sheedy v. McMurtry, 44 Neb. 499, 63 N.W. 21 (1895). - 15 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports SCHAAF V. SCHAAF Cite as 312 Neb. 1 While this court has characterized the right to dismiss as a statutory right and not a matter of judicial grace or discretion, 8 it has also explained that a court has discretion to refuse to dismiss a case. 9 In recognizing exceptions to a plaintiff’s right to dismiss, it has permitted a court to use discretion where it is necessary for the protection of any rights which have accrued to the defendant. 10 This court has said that “‘the only discretion which may be exercised in the matter is the protection of any rights which have accrued to defendant as a result of the bringing of the action, such as the preservation of a counterclaim, the restitution of property of which he has been deprived, the recovery of his costs, and the like; that in the absence of such considerations the right to dismiss is absolute . . . .’” 11 But this court has never applied this discretion where, as here, the defendant seeks no protection and supports the plaintiff’s dismissal. Tommy and Susan took no action whatsoever after the August 2018 dismissal. Clearly, they were aware of the dismissal’s content. And they were likewise familiar with the court’s order entered a few days later. They did not file an appeal. Nor did they file any motion to retax costs or to preserve the partial summary judgment. Indeed, when the copersonal representatives sought reinstatement, Tommy and Susan resisted. At oral argument before this court, they disputed any attempt to read their answer as having asserted a counterclaim. One can scarcely imagine any more that they 8 See, Koll v. Stanton‑Pilger Drainage Dist., 207 Neb. 425, 299 N.W.2d 435 (1980); Miller v. Harris, 195 Neb. 75, 236 N.W.2d 828 (1975). 9 See Horton v. State, 63 Neb. 34, 88 N.W. 146 (1901). 10 See, Kansas Bankers Surety Co. v. Halford, 263 Neb. 971, 644 N.W.2d 865 (2002); Blue River Power Co. v. Hronik, 116 Neb. 405, 217 N.W. 604 (1928). 11 Kansas Bankers Surety Co. v. Halford, supra note 10, 263 Neb. at 978, 644 N.W.2d at 870 (quoting Feight v. Mathers, 153 Neb. 839, 46 N.W.2d 492 (1951)). - 16 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports SCHAAF V. SCHAAF Cite as 312 Neb. 1 might have done to acquiesce in the copersonal representatives’ voluntary dismissal. The net effect of this court’s decision is to impose upon Tommy and Susan the “benefit” of a partial summary judgment that they gave up by acquiescing in the dismissal. It rewards the copersonal representatives’ forum shopping and allows them to “have [their] cake and eat it too.” The majority opinion teaches defendants that after a motion for summary judgment has been granted in any respect, they dare not rely upon a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal. I suggest that this turns the law upside down and shields a dismissing party from the consequences of its own conduct. I respectfully dissent.