Opinion ID: 1953390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: belated answer and trial participation

Text: As to the first assignment of error, claiming that the district court erred in accepting Kizzier Realty's untimely answer and in permitting it to participate in the trial, the record reveals that Kizzier Realty was served with summons and a copy of the county's petition on August 28,1993, and that it did not file its answer until February 10, 1994. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-821 (Reissue 1995) provides that [t]he answer ... of the defendant shall be filed within thirty days after service of the summons and petition.... Thus, Kizzier Realty's answer was clearly out of time. However, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-822 (Reissue 1995) provides that ft]he court ... for good cause shown, may extend the time for filing an answer or reply upon such terms as may be just. We have held as a general rule that the granting or withholding of permission to file a late pleading rests in the discretion of the trial court. Keithley v. Black, 239 Neb. 685, 477 N.W.2d 806 (1991). We have also held that where it is apparent that the party in default has a meritorious defense to an action, the court must permit the answer to be filed despite the fact that the time to answer has passed. In re Application of Jantzen, 245 Neb. 81, 511 N.W.2d 504 (1994). See, also, Anest v. Chester B. Brown Co., 169 Neb. 330, 99 N.W.2d 615 (1959). Kizzier Realty's answer admitted all of the allegations in the county's petition and asserted that it had an interest by virtue of a promissory note and real estate mortgage. In this sense, the answer pled a meritorious defense to the county's petition, which prayed that Kizzier Realty be foreclosed of all equity of redemption, claim, right, title, and interest upon or in the underlying real estate. Thus, it cannot be said the district court abused its discretion in permitting Kizzier Realty to file a belated answer. Moreover, as Mack Trucks did not insist upon an immediate ruling on its objection to the untimely answer, see Toombs v. Driver Mgmt., Inc., 248 Neb. 1016, 540 N.W.2d 592 (1995), and did not ask for a continuance, neither can it be said the district court abused its discretion in permitting Kizzier Realty to adduce evidence at the scheduled trial, see Adrian v. Adrian, 249 Neb. 53, 541 N.W.2d 388 (1995).