Court Opinion

ID: 9406206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 13:06:46.697244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:28.009338
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
06/30/2023 08:06 AM CDT

                                                      - 597 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        314 Nebraska Reports
                      IN RE GUARDIANSHIP & CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARONICA B.
                                        Cite as 314 Neb. 597

                           In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of
                                Maronica B., a protected person.
                          Ronald Branch, appellant, v. Davion Brewer
                                 and Student Transportation of
                                    Nebraska, Inc., appellees.
                                                  ___ N.W.2d ___

                                        Filed June 30, 2023.    No. S-22-239.

                 1. Jurisdiction: Statutes. Subject matter jurisdiction and statutory inter-
                    pretation present questions of law.
                 2. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question which does
                    not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a
                    matter of law.
                 3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court independently
                    reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.
                 4. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. It is the power and duty of an appel-
                    late court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before
                    it, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by the parties.
                 5. ____: ____. If the court from which an appeal was taken lacked jurisdic-
                    tion, then the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction.
                 6. Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. Subject matter jurisdiction is the
                    power of a tribunal to hear and determine a case in the general class or
                    category to which the proceedings in question belong and to deal with
                    the general subject matter involved.
                 7. Courts: Jurisdiction: Equity. Although county courts lack general
                    equity jurisdiction, they may apply equitable principles to matters that
                    are within their exclusive jurisdiction.
                 8. Pleadings. When the title of a filing does not reflect its substance, it is
                    proper for a court to treat a pleading or motion based on its substance
                    rather than its title.
                 9. Actions: Rescission: Equity. An action for rescission or a defense
                    based on the same principles sounds in equity.
                                  - 598 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    314 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE GUARDIANSHIP & CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARONICA B.
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 597

10. Contracts: Rescission: Fraud. Grounds for the remedy of rescission of
    a contract include fraud and misrepresentation.
11. Releases: Fraud. A release of a claim for relief should not be upheld if
    fraud, deceit, oppression, or unconscionable advantage is connected with
    the transaction.
12. Actions: Equity: Jurisdiction. An action in equity must be founded on
    some recognized source of equity jurisdiction.

  Appeal from the County Court for Douglas County: John E.
Huber, Judge. Order vacated, and appeal dismissed.
  Joel M. Carney, of Goosmann Law Firm, P.L.C., for
appellant.
  Michael T. Gibbons and Raymond E. Walden, of Woodke &
Gibbons, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee Davion Brewer.
   Andrew D. Wurdeman, Stephen L. Ahl, and Kathryn J. Van
Balen, of Baylor, Evnen, Wolfe & Tannehill, L.L.P., for appel-
lee Student Transportation of Nebraska, Inc.
  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
   Miller-Lerman, J.
                    I. NATURE OF CASE
   Maronica B., a minor, was injured when a car in which
she was a passenger and that was driven by her cousin,
Davion Brewer (Davion), collided with a schoolbus. In 2017,
Maronica’s mother, and then-conservator, Macosha Brewer
(Brewer), applied to the county court for Douglas County to
permit her to settle Maronica’s personal injury claim against
Davion and his automobile insurance carrier. The county
court found the settlement was in Maronica’s best interests
and entered an order in which it authorized the settlement.
In 2021, Maronica’s father, Ronald Branch, who was also
the successor conservator (Conservator), relying on equity,
filed a motion in the county court to rescind and unwind
the 2017 settlement agreement. The motion sought an order
                             - 599 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE GUARDIANSHIP & CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARONICA B.
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 597

vacating the county court’s prior order authorizing settlement
on the grounds that the resulting settlement potentially limited
Maronica’s recovery against nonsettling parties. The county
court found no basis or authority to rescind the settlement
agreement and denied the motion to vacate the prior order.
The Conservator appeals, but waived preparation of a bill of
exceptions. Because the county court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to rescind the personal injury settlement agree-
ment, we vacate the order of the county court and dismiss
this appeal.
                  II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
   Maronica sustained severe injuries in an automobile colli-
sion that occurred on April 25, 2017, in Omaha, Nebraska. A
schoolbus operated by an employee of Student Transportation
of Nebraska, Inc., collided with the car in which Maronica
was a passenger. The driver of Maronica’s car was her cousin,
Davion. In 2017, Brewer petitioned the county court for
Douglas County for appointment as a conservator for her
daughter, Maronica, for the purpose of handling personal
injury claims arising out of the collision. According to the
petition, the schoolbus pulled in front of Davion’s car, and
Davion was contributorily negligent in the collision. The
county court appointed Brewer as conservator on August
2, 2017.
   Brewer subsequently applied for leave from the county
court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2653(d) (Reissue 2016)
to settle a portion of Maronica’s tort claims and, specifically,
to execute a release in favor of Davion and his automobile
insurance carrier for policy limits of $250,000. The applica-
tion stated that the settlement was in the best interests of
Maronica. Brewer’s application stated that after the pay-
ment of existing medical bills, medical liens, attorney fees,
and reimbursement of expenses, the remaining net proceeds
would be placed in a conservatorship account in the amount
of $155,850.37. With respect to future medical care, the
                             - 600 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE GUARDIANSHIP & CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARONICA B.
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 597

application explained that Maronica was continuing treatment
with her doctors and further represented that future medical
bills and medical liens could be paid out of future recovery
against nonsettling, remaining negligent parties involved in
the collision.
   In 2017, the county court issued an order in which it autho-
rized the proposed settlement with Davion and his insurer.
Based on a hearing and evidence not in the record on appeal,
the order states that the county court found the settlement to be
in Maronica’s best interests and ordered that the net proceeds
be placed in an insured account for Maronica’s benefit.
   Maronica’s father was later appointed as the Conservator.
On February 18, 2021, the Conservator filed a motion in this
conservatorship case asking the county court to vacate “nunc
pro tunc” the 2017 order authorizing the settlement agreement.
No statute authorizing the undoing of settlements was cited.
The motion stated that the “balance of equities” weighed in
favor of vacating the county court’s prior order and rescind-
ing the settlement agreement with Davion and his insurer.
The motion also expressed the Conservator’s concern that the
settlement agreement with Davion and his insurer could poten-
tially prevent Maronica from recovering fully in a separate tort
action pending against Student Transportation of Nebraska and
the busdriver.
   The county court held at least one hearing on the motion
to vacate, although we are without a bill of exceptions show-
ing the proceedings. Following the hearing, the county court
found no basis or authority under Nebraska law to void
the settlement agreement and release executed by Brewer
as then-conservator, and it denied the motion to vacate. The
Conservator appeals.
                III. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
   The Conservator assigns, summarized and restated, that the
county court erred when it declined to vacate its 2017 order
that authorized the settlement.
                             - 601 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE GUARDIANSHIP & CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARONICA B.
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 597

               IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
   [1-3] Subject matter jurisdiction and statutory interpreta-
tion present questions of law. In re Estate of Adelung, 306
Neb. 646, 947 N.W.2d 269 (2020). A jurisdictional question
which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by
an appellate court as a matter of law. Id. An appellate court
independently reviews questions of law decided by a lower
court. Id.
                         V. ANALYSIS
   The Conservator appeals from an order that denied a motion
asking the county court to exercise equity to rescind a contract
that had released Davion and his insurer from tort liability to
Maronica. Because the nature of the Conservator’s request
was in equity, even if the county court had had the equitable
power asserted by the Conservator, in the absence of a bill of
exceptions, this court would have been hampered in our de
novo assessment of the merits. Nevertheless, the record sup-
plied is adequate to show that the Conservator’s request was
not related to the conservatorship, the county court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over the substance of the motion,
and the county court could not afford the relief sought by the
Conservator. We vacate the order of the county court and dis-
miss this appeal.
              1. General Principles of Subject
                     Matter Jurisdiction
   [4,5] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review,
it is the power and duty of an appellate court to determine
whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it, irrespec-
tive of whether the issue is raised by the parties. County of
Lancaster v. County of Custer, 313 Neb. 622, 985 N.W.2d
612 (2023). If the court from which an appeal was taken
lacked jurisdiction, then the appellate court acquires no juris-
diction. Id.
   We begin by reciting several familiar principles of law.
                             - 602 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE GUARDIANSHIP & CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARONICA B.
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 597

   [6] Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal
to hear and determine a case in the general class or cat-
egory to which the proceedings in question belong and to
deal with the general subject matter involved. In re Estate of
Adelung, supra.
   [7] County courts maintain exclusive original jurisdiction
of all matters related to a conservatorship of a person. Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 24-517(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022). The Legislature
has specifically provided that in matters arising under the
Nebraska Probate Code, including conservatorships, “[t]o
the full extent permitted by the Constitution of Nebraska, the
court has jurisdiction over all subject matter relating to . . .
protection of minors and incapacitated persons . . . .” Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 30-2211(a) (Reissue 2016). See, also, § 30-2201
(Cum. Supp. 2022) (including conservatorships and guardian-
ships in Nebraska Probate Code). Although county courts lack
general equity jurisdiction, they may apply equitable prin-
ciples to matters that are within their exclusive jurisdiction.
In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661, 838 N.W.2d
262 (2013).
           2. The Conservator Sought Rescission,
                   Which Sounds in Equity
   The subject before the county court was rescission of a tort
settlement contract. Like the county court, we understand these
proceedings as a purported action in equity. As we explain, for
the county court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the
Conservator’s motion, it must possess a recognized source of
equity jurisdiction.
      (a) Notwithstanding Its Caption, the Motion Sought
           to Rescind a Contract of Settlement and
                   Release of Tort Liability
   [8] Although the Conservator characterized the motion
shaping this proceeding as a motion to vacate “nunc pro
tunc,” we read the substance of the motion as a request for
rescission of the 2017 settlement agreement executed by
                            - 603 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
   IN RE GUARDIANSHIP & CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARONICA B.
                     Cite as 314 Neb. 597

Brewer, Maronica’s prior conservator, with Davion and his
insurer. When the title of a filing does not reflect its sub-
stance, it is proper for a court to treat a pleading or motion
based on its substance rather than its title. Gerber v. P & L
Finance Co., 301 Neb. 463, 919 N.W.2d 116 (2018). The
Conservator’s motion sought the following relief: The county
court should (1) vacate the order authorizing the tort claim
settlement, (2) order Conservator to repay the $250,000 to
Davion’s insurance carrier, and (3) order that “any settlement
or release entered into between anyone on behalf of Maronica
. . . and Davion . . . and/or his insurance carriers is hereby
declared void ab initio and of no legal force or effect.”
   The Conservator’s motion did not attack the county court’s
2017 order; instead, the Conservator challenges the effect of
the 2017 settlement agreement. The Conservator’s motion gen-
erally expressed concern that the settlement agreement with
Davion would adversely impact future recovery from nonset-
tling tort-feasors against whom Maronica had asserted claims.
                 (b) Rescission of Contract Is
                      Equitable in Nature
   [9-11] An action for rescission or a defense based on the
same principles sounds in equity. See In re Claims Against
Pierce Elevator, 291 Neb. 798, 868 N.W.2d 781 (2015).
Grounds for the remedy of rescission of a contract include
fraud and misrepresentation. See id. We have also said that
a release of a claim for relief should not be upheld if fraud,
deceit, oppression, or unconscionable advantage is connected
with the transaction. See Gonzalez v. Union Pacific RR. Co.,
282 Neb. 47, 803 N.W.2d 424 (2011).
      (c) County Courts’ Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
       Over Conservatorships Does Not Include Power
             to Grant Equitable Relief Unrelated
                     to Conservatorship.
  [12] An action in equity must be founded on some rec-
ognized source of equity jurisdiction. In re Claims Against
                             - 604 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE GUARDIANSHIP & CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARONICA B.
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 597

Pierce Elevator, supra. The county courts have jurisdiction
over “all matters relating to conservatorship of any person.”
§ 24-517(3). However, they are not empowered to use conser-
vatorship proceedings to grant equitable relief unrelated to the
conservatorship.
   We have long held that the county court has been given
equity powers as to all matters within or incidental to its
exclusive jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Estate of Adelung,
306 Neb. 646, 947 N.W.2d 269 (2020); In re Guardianship
of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661, 838 N.W.2d 262 (2013); Eden
v. Asa, 178 Neb. 651, 134 N.W.2d 600 (1965); In re Estate
of Jensen, 135 Neb. 602, 283 N.W. 196 (1939); Youngson v.
Bond, 69 Neb. 356, 95 N.W. 700 (1903). However, contrary
to the Conservator’s urging, the county court’s subject matter
jurisdiction over conservatorships is not an independent basis
to grant the Conservator’s motion that sought rescission of
a contract.
   We note that the Legislature has empowered conservators
to, inter alia, “prosecute or defend actions, claims or proceed-
ings in any jurisdiction for the protection of estate assets
and of the conservator in the performance of his duties.”
Section 30-2653(24) (emphasis supplied). Actions on behalf
of the protected person are not confined to proceedings in the
county court, and not all legal proceedings that may affect the
estate of the protected person are within the scope of the con-
servatorship. Compare Miller v. Janecek, 210 Neb. 316, 314
N.W.2d 250 (1982) (determining that equity matter concern-
ing personal representative did not relate to county courts’
exclusive original jurisdiction), with In re Estate of Kentopp.
Kentopp v. Kentopp, 206 Neb. 776, 295 N.W.2d 275 (1980)
(determining that exercise of equity related where property
involved belonged to decedent and subject to administration
of county court), and In re Estate of Layton, 207 Neb. 646,
300 N.W.2d 802 (1981) (same). An equity action to protect
the ward may be appropriate in another forum. However,
the fact that the Conservator is involved in another lawsuit
                             - 605 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE GUARDIANSHIP & CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARONICA B.
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 597

does not make the matter statutorily one relating to the
conservatorship, and the county court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction of the motion to vacate and rescind the contract
of settlement.
      3. Statutes Pertaining to the Courts’ Power to
        Vacate a Prior Order Do Not Confer Equity
              Jurisdiction on the County Court
   Perhaps recognizing the absence of equity jurisdiction in
the county court to achieve his objectives, on appeal, the
Conservator refers us to statutes that permit courts to vacate
orders out of term and that, as the Conservator urges, supply
the needed equity power he seeks to employ in this matter.
These statutes do not empower the county courts with equity
jurisdiction, and we reject the Conservator’s argument.
   The Conservator refers us in particular to two statutes. Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 25-2720.01 (Reissue 2016) provides:
         The county court, including the Small Claims Court
      and the county court when sitting as a juvenile court,
      shall have the power to set aside default judgments and
      to vacate or modify its own judgments or orders during
      or after the term at which such judgments or orders were
      made in the same manner as provided for actions filed in
      the district court.
   Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(2) (Reissue 2016) provides: “The
power of a district court under its equity jurisdiction to set
aside a judgment or an order as an equitable remedy is not
limited by this section.”
   Relying on § 25-2720.01 regarding vacating orders after
the county court term, the Conservator believes that the statu-
tory language authorizing county courts to vacate orders “in
the same manner as provided for actions filed in the district
court” means that county courts have all the powers of the
district courts. This reading is in error. Instead, we give a
sensible reading to § 25-2720.01. The Conservator’s read-
ing overlooks the inferential language of the phrasal verb
                             - 606 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE GUARDIANSHIP & CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARONICA B.
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 597

“provided for”—a phrase we logically complete to mean “as
provided [by the Constitution or statutes] for actions filed
in the district court.” The Nebraska Constitution provides
independent equity jurisdiction to the district court, see Neb.
Const. art. 5, § 9, complemented by concurrent statutes. There
is no comparable root source of equity power “provided for”
the county courts, and § 25-2720.01 does not serve to do so.
   Having likened the powers of the county courts to those of
the district courts, the Conservator argues that the reference to
“equity jurisdiction” in § 25-2001(2) applies equally to district
courts and county courts, purportedly bestowing equity power
on county courts. We do not agree.
   Section 25-2001(2) states its provisions do not limit the
power of the district court under its equity jurisdiction. This
section does not confer equitable power; it merely refers to
the existing “equity jurisdiction” of the district court. We have
observed that its provisions are compatible with independent
equity jurisdiction of the district court. See Howard Stove &
Furnace Co. v. Rudolf, 128 Neb. 665, 260 N.W. 189 (1935).
Although county courts can apply equity power within the
confines of their statutorily granted jurisdiction as we have
indicated above, the statutes pertaining to vacating orders after
the term do not confer additional equity jurisdiction on the
county courts.
                     VI. CONCLUSION
   The Conservator’s motion to vacate an earlier tort settle-
ment was a request for rescission of contract sounding in
equity over which the county court did not have jurisdiction in
this conservator matter. The statutes regarding vacating orders
after the term, §§ 25-2720.01 and 25-2001(2), do not confer
equity jurisdiction on the county courts. The county court
did not have jurisdiction; therefore, we do not have jurisdic-
tion, and we vacate the order of the county court and dismiss
this appeal.
                     Order vacated, and appeal dismissed.