Court Opinion

ID: 9698172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:43:58.625968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:39.092188
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion herein because it transfers the original jurisdiction of a county court in a probate matter to the District Court. The county courts of this state have exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters of probate and administration. Lewin v. Lewin, 174 Neb. 596, 119 N. W. 2d 96 (1962).
The subject matter of the action is an automobile accident which occurred March 30, 1972. The original plaintiff died May 12, 1975, so it is evident it is not a Lord Campbell action of the widow and the next of kin. Rather, any recovery herein would be an asset first available to the creditors for payment of debts, with only the remainder going to the heirs-at-law, as determined by the county court.
In my judgment, the plaintiffs are not the real parties in interest, and this issue has been raised at every stage of the proceedings since prior to the trial herein. I would hold the action must be re*569vived in the name of a personal representative, appointed by the county court.
The basis on which the trial court took jurisdiction on behalf of the alleged heirs is that there are not sufficient assets in the estate to justify a probate proceeding and the estate will not be probated. On its face this is an absurdity. The action itself is an asset of the estate. The prayer of the petition is for $23,712.70.
The trial court found for the plaintiffs and against the defendant on the issue of liability, so there is a substantial asset in the estate. The extent of liability is still to be tried. How is a recovery to be distributed? According to the laws of descent and distribution? Or, will it be distributed equally to the alleged heirs?
As we said in Murray v. Omaha Transfer Co., 98 Neb. 482, 153 N. W. 488 (1915), which concerned a rehearing on an action for personal injuries where both the Lord Campbell or death act and the estate were involved: “Under our statutes the wife has an interest in the property and rights of her husband at his decease, of which he cannot deprive her by any act of his. His creditors also have an interest which he cannot ignore. His administrator represents all of those interests.” Here, however, the death act is not involved, so the rights of creditors, subject to statutory allowances, take precedence.
A pending tort claim is a chose in action and a part of the deceased’s personal estate. In my judgment, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction herein. The alleged heirs could not revive the action in their names, and the court did not have authority to do so. The law is well settled, jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be conferred by.consent or failure to object. See Plunkett v. Parsons, 143 Neb. 535, 10 N. W. 2d 469 (1943).