Opinion ID: 1833108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: was county court's order final?

Text: Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, we first address whether this court has jurisdiction. It is the power and duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by the parties. [4] For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final order entered by the tribunal from which the appeal is taken. [5] In In re Estate of Rose, we recently considered whether a determination by a county court as to a family allowance and the inclusion of certain property in an augmented estate was a final order where the county court retained jurisdiction to determine the size of the augmented estate, which would serve as a basis for an award of a spouse's elective share. Of the three types of final orders, [6] the county court's order in In re Estate of Rose could only have been one that was made during a special proceeding and affected a substantial right. We determined that the court's order was made during a special proceeding, but that it did not affect a substantial right. We explained that although the court's determination as to the family allowance and inclusion of certain property in the augmented estate both decreased and increased the augmented estate, the size of the augmented estate had not yet been determined. We further explained that the rights affected in the county court's order could be considered in an appeal from which the augmented estate is finally established. As in In re Estate of Rose, the order in the present case did not determine an action and prevent a judgment, nor was it made on summary application in an action after judgment was rendered. Accordingly, in order to be final and appealable, the order in this case must have affected a substantial right and been made during a special proceeding. [7] Our case law has established that a proceeding under the Nebraska Probate Code is a special proceeding. [8] We are, therefore, left to determine whether the order in this case affected a substantial right. The record before this court does not reflect that Elvira has made a claim for an elective share. Thus, unlike In re Estate of Rose, the computation of the augmented estate is not the fundamental issue in this case. rather, the fundamental issue before the county court was the computation of the probate estate. We have observed that a substantial right is affected if the order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a claim or defense that was available to an appellant prior to the order from which an appeal is taken. [9] We have further observed that a substantial right is not affected when that right can be effectively vindicated in an appeal from the final judgment. [10] In that regard, we held in In re Estate of Rose that because the ultimate issue had yet to be determined, the rights involved in the court's ruling could be effectively considered in an appeal from the final judgment in which the augmented estate is finally established. That is not true in the present case. Here, the county court determined that Lloyd's notices of severance of joint tenancy were not effective and, therefore, upon Lloyd's death, the property, including Lloyd's prior interest in it, became Elvira's as the surviving joint tenant. This finding by the court resolved the separate issue of whether Lloyd's interest in the property was part of the probate estate, and following the county court's order, there was nothing left to be determined on that issue. Moreover, unlike In re Estate of Rose, the rights involved in this case cannot be effectively considered in an appeal from the final judgment in which the probate estate is finally established. It is not uncommon for the probate of an estate to remain open for years. If that were to be the case here, by the time the probate estate is finally settled, the property in question may have been disposed of or the value of the property may be substantially reduced. accordingly, we determine that the court's ruling in this case does affect a substantial right and is, therefore, a final, appealable order.