Opinion ID: 2107819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Judgment Void as Matter of Law

Text: The county court allowed Jerald to testify that he was never served, did not know about the lawsuit, and had not authorized the actions of the attorney who purported to make a general appearance on his behalf. In its ruling, the county court determined that Jerald had not been served, but also determined that as a matter of law, Jerald needed more than his own testimony to establish that the attorney's appearance had been unauthorized. The district court decided that the county court had erred in ruling that as a matter of law, Jerald's testimony alone could not overcome the presumption that he had authorized the attorney's appearance. The court remanded for a new trial. On cross-appeal, Jerald contends that based on the evidentiary record, we should decide that as a matter of law, the attorney's appearance was unauthorized. We disagree. [11-14] A litigant is not responsible for the acts of an unauthorized attorney. Welch v. Welch, 246 Neb. 435, 519 N.W.2d 262 (1994). Thus, when a person has never hired an attorney, but the attorney appears in court purporting to represent the person, then all of the attorney's acts are void and the judgment based on those acts is void. See id. When an attorney appears in an action as the representative of a party to the action, the presumption of the law is that he appears by the authority of the party whom he assumes to represent; but this presumption is prima facie only and may be rebutted by proof that the appearance was without such authority. Vorce v. Page, 28 Neb. 294, 44 N.W. 452 (1889). The presumption that the appearance of an attorney was authorized must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. See Winters v. Means, 25 Neb. 241, 246, 41 N.W. 157, 159 (1888) (holding that want of authority to appear should be clearly made to appear). Jerald was the only person who testified at trial. His testimony, if believed, would have been sufficient to overcome the presumption that the attorney's appearance was authorized. But this case ultimately turns on whether Jerald's testimony was credible. The county court did not determine whether it believed Jerald, and, because we have only a cold record, we are not able to evaluate Jerald's credibility. Thus, we refuse to decide this case as a matter of law and agree with the district court's decision to remand for a new trial.