Court Opinion

ID: 9894856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 14:10:50.142934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:53.524753
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/03/2023 09:10 AM CDT

                                                        - 413 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        315 Nebraska Reports
                                           BOONE RIVER, LLC V. MILES
                                               Cite as 315 Neb. 413

                         Boone River, LLC, and 11T NE, LLC, Nebraska
                           limited liability companies, appellees, v.
                             Nancy J. Miles and Cheryl L. Bettin,
                                  appellants, and Robert R.
                                     Moninger, appellee.
                                                   ___ N.W.2d ___

                                        Filed November 3, 2023.   No. S-22-673.

                                            supplemental opinion
                 Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: LeAnne
               M. Srb, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing
               overruled.

                  Aimee S. Melton, Ronald E. Reagan, and Megan E. Shupe,
               of Reagan, Melton & Delaney, L.L.P., for appellants.

                 Marc Odgaard for appellees Boone River, LLC, and 11T
               NE, LLC.

                 Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
               Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

                  Per Curiam.
                  This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by
               the appellees, Boone River, LLC, and 11T NE, LLC (11T),
               concerning our opinion in Boone River, LLC v. Miles, 314 Neb.
               889, 994 N.W.2d 35 (2023).
                  We overrule the motion, but modify the opinion as follows:
                              - 414 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                   BOONE RIVER, LLC V. MILES
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 413

   In the analysis section, under the heading “2. Claim
Preclusion” and the subheading “(b) 11T,” we withdraw the
third paragraph and substitute the following:
      11T argues that it cannot be precluded from raising its
      unjust enrichment claim because at the time it filed its
      complaint in the first lawsuit, it had not yet made the
      tax payments for which it now seeks an unjust enrich-
      ment recovery. In support of this argument, 11T cites
      cases generally holding that a party is not precluded from
      raising claims that arose before the entry of judgment in
      a prior action but after the filing of the complaint. See,
      e.g., Hatch v. Boulder Town Council, 471 F.3d 1142 (10th
      Cir. 2006). The rationale for such decisions, however,
      is that in such instances, it is up to the plaintiff in the
      prior action to decide if it wishes to amend its pleadings
      to have claims that arose after the filing of the com-
      plaint adjudicated in the first lawsuit. See, e.g., Computer
      Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 126 F.3d 365, 370
      (2d Cir. 1997) (“[a]lthough a plaintiff may seek leave to
      file a supplemental pleading to assert a new claim based
      on actionable conduct which the defendant engaged in
      after a lawsuit is commenced, . . . he is not required to
      do so”). But in this case, as we have explained above
      with respect to Boone River, the first lawsuit involved
      a unique procedural setting in which Miles and Bettin
      themselves raised the issue of 11T’s entitlement to reim-
      bursement for its payment of taxes through their request
      to quiet title in their names and their accompanying post-
      ing of a bond. Because Miles and Bettin raised the issue
      of 11T’s entitlement to reimbursement in the first lawsuit
      and the relief 11T seeks could have been awarded as part
      of the relief Miles and Bettin sought, we find the author-
      ity 11T relies upon distinguishable.
   The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.
                           Former opinion modified.
                           Motion for rehearing overruled.