Opinion ID: 1871944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: District Court Concurrent Jurisdiction

Text: Ptak also asserts that his petition should not have been dismissed because the district court has concurrent jurisdiction with the county court over cases involving the recovery of money, including those cases arising within the context of a probate proceeding. Exclusive original jurisdiction over probate matters has been given to the county court by the Nebraska Legislature. Section 24-517 provides in pertinent part: Each county court shall have the following jurisdiction: (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction of all matters relating to decedents' estates, including the probate of wills and the construction thereof . . . . Section 30-2211(a) provides in part: To the full extent permitted by the Constitution of Nebraska, the [county] court has jurisdiction over all subject matter relating to (1) estates of decedents, including construction of wills and determination of heirs and successors of decedents, and estates of protected persons. We have stated, however, that the Legislature's grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the county court in matters relating to decedents' estates is of suspect constitutionality insofar as it relates to matters that would involve either the chancery or common-law jurisdiction of the district courts. In re Estate of Steppuhn, 221 Neb. 329, 332, 377 N.W.2d 83, 85 (1985). [6,7] Neb. Const. art. V, § 9 states: The district courts shall have both chancery and common law jurisdiction, and such other jurisdiction as the Legislature may provide . . . . Because a district court's general jurisdiction emanates from the Nebraska Constitution, it cannot be legislatively limited or controlled. Schweitzer v. American Nat. Red Cross, 256 Neb. 350, 591 N.W.2d 524 (1999); In re Estate of Steppuhn, supra . Thus, in common-law and equity actions relating to decedents' estates, the county courts have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district courts. Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb 713, 592 N.W.2d 894 (1999); Iodence v. Potmesil, 239 Neb. 387, 476 N.W.2d 554 (1991). See In re Estate of Steppuhn, supra . [8] The allegations of a petition establish the character of a cause of action and the remedy or relief it seeks. Lone Cedar Ranches v. Jandebeur, 246 Neb. 769, 523 N.W.2d 364 (1994). As we read Ptak's petition, it states a claim for statutory recovery under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-24,106 and 30-24,107 (Reissue 1995) of the Nebraska Probate Code. Section 30-24,106 provides that the personal representative may recover assets or their value if their distribution was improper. Section 30-24,107 provides that a distributee of property improperly received is liable to return the property and its income since distribution, or the value of the property as of the date of distribution and its income and gain received by distributee if the distributee does not have the property. These statutes create a duty to return estate assets improperly received and create in the personal representative a right to recover such assets. Ptak's recovery of estate assets is inextricably tied to the probate of the estate. See § 24-517(1). Therefore, Ptak's right of recovery in the instant case arises within the exclusive original jurisdiction over probate matters in the county court. We therefore conclude that the district court properly dismissed Ptak's petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.