Opinion ID: 2009457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Filing of Affidavit of Proof of Service.

Text: [3] Because they are helpful to an understanding of the issues presented in this case, we first set forth the relevant statutory provisions dealing with the filing of an appeal in a condemnation action. The right to appeal from an award for assessment of damages in an eminent domain action is set forth in § 76-715, which provides: Either condemner or condemnee may appeal from the assessment of damages by the appraisers to the district court of the county where the petition to initiate proceedings was filed. Such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the county judge within thirty days from the date of filing of the report of appraisers as provided in section 76-710. These requirements are expanded upon in § 76-715.01: The party appealing from the award for assessment of damages by the appraisers in any eminent domain action shall, within thirty days of the filing of the award, file a notice of appeal with the court, specifying the parties taking the appeal and the award thereof appealed from, and shall serve a copy of the same upon all parties bound by the award or upon their attorneys of record. Service may be made by mail, and proof of such service shall be made by an affidavit of the appellant filed with the court within five days after the filing of the notice stating that such notice of appeal was duly mailed or that after diligent search the addresses of such persons or their attorneys of record are unknown. Finally, § 76-717 provides: Within thirty days after the filing of such notice of appeal, the county judge shall prepare and transmit to the clerk of the district court a duly certified transcript of all proceedings had concerning the parcel or parcels of land as to which the particular condemnee takes the appeal upon payment of the fees provided by law for preparation thereof. When notice of appeal is filed by both the condemner and the condemnee, such transcript shall be prepared only in response to the first notice of appeal. The transcript prepared in response to the second notice of appeal shall contain only a copy of such notice and the proceedings shall be docketed in the district court as a single cause of action. The filing of the notice of appeal shall confer jurisdiction on the district court. The first party to perfect an appeal shall file a petition on appeal in the district court within fifty days after the filing of the notice of appeal. If no petition is filed, the court shall direct the first party to perfect an appeal to file a petition and impose such sanctions as are reasonable. The appeal shall be tried de novo in the district court. Such appeal shall not delay the acquisition of the property and placing of same to a public use if the condemner shall first deposit with the county judge the amount assessed by the appraisers. (Emphasis supplied.) In concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals relied upon Radil v. State, [7] while the district court cited to Neumeyer v. Omaha Public Power Dist . [8] In both Neumeyer and Radil, this court held that the provisions of § 76-715.01 were mandatory. A closer examination of these cases, however, shows that they are both distinguishable from this case. In Radil, the issue presented to the court was whether it was necessary for a notice of appeal to be filed and served upon the other party in a condemnation action. The precise question of whether the filing of the affidavit of proof of service was also mandatory was not presented to or decided by the court. And in Neumeyer, while we did note that the requirements of § 76-715.01 were mandatory, we did so in the context of holding that the requirements of § 76-716 (requiring the filing of an appeal bond) were directory. [9] Again, the issue of whether the filing of the affidavit of proof of service was jurisdictional was not presented or decided. [4-6] What both the district court and the Court of Appeals overlook is language from § 76-717, which provides in relevant part that the filing of the notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the district court. A court will construe statutes relating to the same subject matter together so as to maintain a consistent and sensible scheme. [10] The components of a series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter which are in pari materia may be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions of the act are consistent, harmonious, and sensible. [11] And when §§ 76-715, 76-715.01, and 76-717 are considered in light of each other, it is clear that the act which confers jurisdiction on the district court, and which is therefore mandatory, is the filing of the notice of appeal and, by extension, service of this notice. Moreover, we note that two distinct acts occurring days apart cannot both be jurisdictional. And because the act which is mandatory and jurisdictional is the filing of the notice of appeal, we conclude that the Woodens' failure to timely file an affidavit of proof of service could not and did not divest the district court of jurisdiction. Instead, the timely filing of such an affidavit is directory. We find persuasive the reasoning of the Neumeyer court, which held that the filing of an appeal bond was directory rather than mandatory and that to hold [that such was mandatory] would convert clear, brief language into a jurisdictional maze. [12] The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction due to the Woodens' failure to file a timely affidavit of proof of service.