Opinion ID: 2229012
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: vacating a judgment or order

Text: Nature of Remedy. As we have already determined in this appeal, the county court properly allowed the Tax Commissioner to proceed under the fraud-discovery exception to the 2-year limitation prescribed by § 25-2008, because the Tax Commissioner could not have discovered the alleged fraud within the statutorily dictated limitation of time. However, as authorized under § 25-2001(4), a proceeding to vacate a judgment is not an equitable cause of action based on fraud, but is a remedy at law or legal remedy conferred by statute. Whether the relief is sought by a motion addressed to a court's equity jurisdiction or a petition based on a statute which supplies a legal remedy, vacating a judgment or order is equitable in character, available or administered on equitable principles, and extended on equitable terms. See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 684 (1969). See, also, Miles v. Layton, 38 Del. (8 W.W.Harr.) 411, 193 A. 567 (1937); Keane v. Allen, 69 Idaho 53, 202 P.2d 411 (1949); Rossten v. Wolf, 14 Ill.App.2d 322, 144 N.E.2d 757 (1957). This court has repeatedly recognized that a court's jurisdiction based on § 25-2001 is concurrent with a court's independent equity jurisdiction. See, Emry v. American Honda Motor Co., 214 Neb. 435, 334 N.W.2d 786 (1983); Johnson v. Richards, 155 Neb. 552, 52 N.W.2d 737 (1952); Shinn v. Shinn, 148 Neb. 832, 29 N.W.2d 629 (1947); In re Estate of Jensen, 135 Neb. 602, 283 N.W. 196 (1939); Pavlik v. Burns, 134 Neb. 175, 278 N.W. 149 (1938). Also, we are reminded that, in Katz v. Swanson, 147 Neb. 791, 24 N.W.2d 923 (1946), a case previously mentioned in this opinion concerning the statute of limitations, this court adopted a discovery rule for cases involving a fraudulently obtained judgment, notwithstanding the time limitation prescribed by § 25-2008, thereby recognizing applicability of an equitable doctrine in relation to a statutory action for vacation of a judgment. Thus, equitable consideration in the setting of statutorily authorized relief is not a novelty in Nebraska jurisprudence. If, as expressed by Selden, the standard for measure of equitable conscience is the Chancellor's foot, fraud is indeed a bunion. Burden of Proof. Under § 25-2001(4), to vacate a judgment or order after the term in which the judgment or order was made, the party seeking to vacate such judgment or order allegedly obtained through fraud practiced by the successful party must prove: (1) The judgment or order has been obtained or produced through fraud; (2) it is inequitable or against good conscience to enforce the judgment or order; (3) failure to secure a just decision is not the result of the vacating party's fault, neglect, or lack of diligence; and (4) the party seeking to vacate has exercised due diligence in discovering the fraud which resulted in the judgment or order in question. See, County of Lincoln v. Provident Loan & Investment Co., 147 Neb. 169, 22 N.W.2d 609 (1946); Pinches v. Village of Dickens, 131 Neb. 573, 268 N.W. 645 (1936); Kielian v. Kent & Burke Co., 131 Neb. 308, 268 N.W. 79 (1936). Standard of Review. In reviewing a trial court's action in vacating or refusing to vacate a default judgment, see Bigler v. Baker, 40 Neb. 325, 58 N.W. 1026 (1894), or action in setting aside or refusing to set aside a judgment obtained through a trial, see State v. Cottingham, 226 Neb. p. 270, 410 N.W.2d 498 (1987), the Supreme Court will uphold and affirm the trial court's action in the absence of an abuse of discretion. By analogy, a trial court's disposition of a request to vacate a judgment or order allegedly obtained by fraud and entered at a previous term of court should be evaluated by the same standard applicable to requests involving a default judgment or judgment obtained through a trial. Therefore, we hold that under § 25-2001(4), in reviewing a trial court's action in vacating, or refusing to vacate, a judgment or order made in a previous term of court and allegedly obtained through fraud practiced by the successful party, the Supreme Court will uphold and affirm the trial court's action in the absence of an abuse of discretion.