Opinion ID: 4534566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: These two cases arose out of an arbitration between family members designated as the “Omaha Seldins” and the “Arizona Seldins.” The term “Omaha Seldins” refers to the following individuals, entities, and trusts: Theodore M. Seldin, individually and in his capacity as trustee of the Amended and Restated Theodore M. Seldin Revocable Trust, dated May 28, 2008; Howard Scott Silverman as trustee of the Amended and Restated Stanley C. Silverman Revocable Trust, dated August 26, 2006; Silverman Holdings, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company; SCS Family, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company; TMS & SNS Family, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company; Sarah N. Seldin and Irving B. Epstein, as trustees of the Theodore M. Seldin and Sarah N. Seldin Children’s Trust, dated January 1, 1995; Uri Ratner as trustee of the Stanley C. Silverman and Norma R. Silverman Irrevocable Trust Agreement (2008), dated April 10, 2008; John W. Hancock, Irving B. Epstein, and Randall R. Lenhoff as trustees of the Theodore M. Seldin and Sarah N. Seldin Irrevocable Trust Agreement (2008), dated May 12, 2008. The term “Arizona Seldins” refers to the following individ­ uals, entities, and trusts: Millard R. Seldin, individually and as trustee of the Millard R. Seldin Revocable Trust, dated October 9, 1993; Scott A. Seldin, individually and as trustee of the Seldin 2002 Irrevocable Trust, dated December 13, 2002; Seldin Real Estate, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Kent Circle Investments, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; 1 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 through 16 (2018). - 190 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports SELDIN v. ESTATE OF SILVERMAN Cite as 305 Neb. 185 and Belmont Investments, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company. For a period of more than 50 years, the parties held joint ownership interests as the Seldin Company in numerous entities located in the Omaha, Nebraska, area. The three principals of the Seldin Company were Millard; Millard’s younger brother, Theodore; and Millard’s brother-in-law, Stanley C. Silverman. The Seldin Company’s principal place of business was Omaha. However, in 1987, Millard began relocating the business operations from Omaha to Scottsdale, Arizona. Theodore and Stanley co-owned the company, and they agreed to manage the jointly owned properties through management agreements. In 2007, the Arizona Seldins (specifically Millard and Millard’s son, Scott) began to question how Theodore and Stanley were managing the jointly owned properties. In 2010, the Arizona Seldins terminated the management agreements and the parties entered into an agreement to separate their joint interests in real estate assets through a bidding process. The “Separation Agreement” included a provision whereby the parties agreed to resolve all “Ancillary Claims” exclusively through binding arbitration before arbitrator Stefan Tucker with the Venable, LLP, law firm in Washington, D.C. In case of Tucker’s inability to serve as arbitrator, the agreement named a Venable partner as his successor. If both Tucker and the successor were unable to serve as arbitrator, the agreement provided that Venable’s managing partner was responsible for identifying a substitute successor. The agreement also included provisions defining the scope of arbitration, as well as a provision that the “Commercial Division Rules” of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) would govern. After the bidding process was completed, the parties began arbitration before Tucker in October 2011. While the arbitration was ongoing, the Arizona Seldins filed three lawsuits in the district court for Douglas County regarding their claims or, alternatively, seeking to remove Tucker as arbitrator. The district court dismissed the lawsuits and compelled the Arizona - 191 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports SELDIN v. ESTATE OF SILVERMAN Cite as 305 Neb. 185 Seldins back to arbitration after finding the FAA governed the arbitration provision in the agreement. The Arizona Seldins then filed a demand with the AAA, seeking to disqualify Tucker as the arbitrator. The AAA denied the request; however, Tucker subsequently resigned and neither the successor arbitrator nor Venable was willing to participate in the arbitration. The parties agreed to select an arbitrator through the AAA, and Eugene R. Commander (hereinafter arbitrator) was appointed. Arbitration resumed in October 2013. Due to the number of claims, each involving several independent causes of action and affirmative defenses, the arbitrator proposed bifurcating each claim to address liability and damage claims in separate hearings when necessary. The parties agreed to the proposal, and a schedule of hearings was adopted. After extensive discovery was conducted, 11 evidentiary hearings took place over a span of 14 months. Pursuant to the separation agreement, the hearings took place in Omaha. During the 53 days of hearings, 58 fact and expert witnesses testified and 1,985 exhibits were admitted into evidence. As permitted by the AAA’s rules,2 the arbitrator issued 12 separate interim awards at the end of hearings in which determinations of liability or damages had been made. The parties agreed that these interim awards were not considered final awards and that a final award would be issued after the arbitration had closed. The parties also agreed that the entities and individuals that made up each of the two parties were jointly and severally liable for any award issued by the arbitrator. At some point during the arbitration proceedings, the Arizona Seldins asserted that the Omaha Seldins’ lack of tender of one of its assets, Sky Financial Securities, LLC (Sky Financial), was a defense to damages under the Arizona Securities Act. Sky Financial is an Arizona limited liability company, created as part of a plan to acquire and operate a chain of pizza 2 American Arbitration Association, Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures R-37 at 24 (Oct. 1, 2013). - 192 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports SELDIN v. ESTATE OF SILVERMAN Cite as 305 Neb. 185 restaurants in numerous states. In response, the Omaha Seldins requested that the arbitrator take possession of Sky Financial as a form of interpleader so as to permit the award of the asset to the appropriate party after a determination was made. The Arizona Seldins did not object to the procedure, and when asked whether the assignment as a form of interpleader was acceptable to both sides, the Arizona Seldins stated, “Yes.” The Omaha Seldins then tendered Sky Financial to the arbitrator by assignment. In one of the interim awards, the arbitrator determined that the Arizona Seldins had breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in securities law violations relating to Sky Financial. After finding that none of the affirmative defenses raised by the Arizona Seldins were meritorious, the arbitrator awarded the Omaha Seldins $1,962,528 in damages for their lost corporate opportunities claims, as well as an additional $3,135,681 in recessionary damages for the securities violation claims. On April 12, 2017, the arbitration was officially closed. On April 27, the arbitrator issued a final net award in favor of the Omaha Seldins and against the Arizona Seldins in the amount of $2,997,031, plus postaward simple interest. The final award incorporated each of the prior interim awards issued and found the Arizona Seldins jointly and severally liable for the entire amount. On May 23, 2017, the Omaha Seldins filed a motion to confirm the final award in district court. Opposing confirmation, the Arizona Seldins filed a motion seeking to modify, correct, and/or vacate the award. The Arizona Seldins argued, summarized, that the arbitrator (1) engaged in misbehavior regarding assignment of the Sky Financial asset, and thus the Omaha Seldins lacked standing after the assignment; (2) failed to provide a reasoned award on three of the Arizona Seldins’ key affirmative defenses; (3) exceeded his power in awarding legal fees and expenses to the Omaha Seldins, because the separation agreement precluded the award of attorney fees; and (4) materially miscalculated the amount of prejudgment interest by applying the incorrect interest rate or, alternatively, exceeded - 193 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports SELDIN v. ESTATE OF SILVERMAN Cite as 305 Neb. 185 his power in awarding damages that included the calculated amount of prejudgment interest. Scott, one of the Arizona Seldins, sought further and separate relief. Scott argued that with regard to the Sky Financial claims, the arbitrator made an “evident material mistake in the description of ‘Respondents’” and made an award on matters not submitted to him. Scott alternatively argued that the arbitrator exceeded his power or imperfectly executed it, by issuing an award of liability against Scott on those claims. In addition, Scott filed multiple applications seeking to vacate, confirm, and/or modify some of the interim awards in companion cases CI 16-7509, CI 16-8394, CI 17-506, CI 17-651, and CI 17-3637. The district court held that the interim awards were nonfinal arbitration orders and dismissed the applications. On May 3, 2018, the district court issued an order sustaining the Omaha Seldins’ motion to confirm the arbitration award and overruling the Arizona Seldins’ motion to vacate the award. The district court also awarded the Omaha Seldins an amount equal to the attorneys’ fees and costs [the Omaha Seldins] incurred in resisting [the Arizona Seldins’] application seeking vacation or modification of the Final Award and in seeking dismissal of the various applications (Case Nos. CI 16-7509; CI 16-8394; CI 17-506; CI 17-651; and CI 17-3637) . . . Scott . . . filed seeking to modify, vacate, or confirm the Arbitrator’s Interim Awards [under Neb. Rev. Stat. “§ 25-834”]. The district court had mistakenly referred to the statute authorizing the sanction as Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-834 (Reissue 1995), instead of § 25-824. On July 30, 2018, the Omaha Seldins offered into evidence affidavits with attached fee statements from two law firms, demonstrating the amount of fees incurred on behalf of the Omaha Seldins in resisting the Arizona Seldins’ motion to vacate and in seeking dismissal of Scott’s interim award applications. The affidavits established that the law firm of McGill, Gotsdiner, Workman & Lepp, P.C., L.L.O. (McGill), - 194 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports SELDIN v. ESTATE OF SILVERMAN Cite as 305 Neb. 185 had incurred $131,184.45 in fees and that the law firm of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (Bryan Cave) had incurred $211,676.50 in fees, both on behalf of the Omaha Seldins. The exhibit containing the McGill firm’s statement of fees had been redacted for privilege purposes. At a subsequent hearing, the Omaha Seldins offered an unredacted version of the McGill firm’s fee statement, which the court received into evidence under seal. On February 28, 2019, the district court issued its order denying the Arizona Seldins’ and Scott’s motions to alter or amend. In the same order, the district court awarded the Omaha Seldins attorney fees in the amount of $131,184.45. On June 3, 2019, the Omaha Seldins filed a motion for order nunc pro tunc, requesting that the district court modify the amount of attorney fees to include Bryan Cave’s fees of $211,676.50, for a total award of $342,860.95. After a hearing on the motion, in a written order dated August 26, 2019, the district court denied the Omaha Seldins’ motion for order nunc pro tunc. In its order, the district court stated that it had “clearly intended to award attorney fees to [the Omaha Seldins] in an amount, as stated in the Court’s Order of February 28, 2019, equal to the attorney fees and costs incurred,” but denied the motion after concluding that “[a]n Order Nunc Pro Tunc [could not] be used to enlarge the judgment or substantially amend[] the judgment even though said judgment was not the order intended.” On May 11, 2018, Scott filed a motion to alter or amend the district court’s May 3 order. Scott argued that the award of attorney fees and costs was beyond the amount permitted as damages and that the arbitrator’s award of attorney fees was improper. The motion further asserted that the order had referenced § 25-834 as authorizing the sanction against the Arizona Seldins, but that § 25-834 is unrelated to an award of attorney fees and had been repealed by the Legislature in 2002. The Arizona Seldins also filed a motion to alter or amend the order. The motion incorporated Scott’s arguments and additionally asserted that the district court failed to specifically - 195 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports SELDIN v. ESTATE OF SILVERMAN Cite as 305 Neb. 185 address some of the Arizona Seldins’ prior arguments, including whether the final award violated the automatic bankruptcy stay, whether the final award violated Nebraska’s public policy and resulted in a massive windfall to the Omaha Seldins, and whether the arbitrator engaged in evident partiality. On February 28, 2019, the district court issued a 13-page order detailing its findings and overruling both motions to alter or amend the May 3, 2018, order. The February 28, 2019, order included a nunc pro tunc modification, substituting § 25-824 for the references to § 25-834 in the previous order. When discussing the sanction ordered against the Arizona Seldins, the district court noted that its May 3, 2018, order had “repeatedly identified the absence of rational factual or legal basis to support [the Arizona Seldins’] theories of modifying or vacating the Final Award.” The district court articulated that “[w]hat should have been a fairly simple procedure, [the Arizona Seldins] literally turned into a re-litigation of the Arbitration itself.” The Arizona Seldins appeal the district court’s order confirming the award and the district court’s order of sanctions under § 25-824. Scott, individually, filed a cross-appeal asserting that the final award against him should be modified, corrected, or vacated by law and that the district court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions and overruling his motion to alter or amend. The Omaha Seldins also filed a cross-appeal, challenging the amount of attorney fees and costs ordered by the district court and the district court’s denial of the Omaha Seldins’ motion for order nunc pro tunc. The Arizona Seldins subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Omaha Seldins’ cross-appeal, claiming the Omaha Seldins’ registration of the district court’s judgment with an Arizona state court constituted an acceptance of the benefits of the judgment and, thus, precluded them from appealing the judgment. We granted the parties’ petition to bypass the Nebraska Court of Appeals, and the two cases, S-19-0310 and S-19-0311, have been consolidated for purposes of oral argument and disposition. - 196 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports SELDIN v. ESTATE OF SILVERMAN Cite as 305 Neb. 185