Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A
jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual
dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of
Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A trial
court's decision to certify a final judgment pursuant to
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) (Reissue 2016) is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion.
Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before
reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the
duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has
jurisdiction over the matter before it.
Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Time: Notice: Appeal and
Error. In order to vest an appellate court with
jurisdiction, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days
of the entry of the final order.
Final Orders: Appeal and Error. To be
appealable, an order must satisfy the final order
requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2016)
and, additionally, where implicated, Neb. Rev. Stat. §
25-1315(1) (Reissue 2016).
Partition: Final Orders. When a partition
action involves a dispute over ownership or title as well as
a dispute over the method of partition, the parties have a
right to have title determined first, and, if they elect to
do so, an order resolving only the title dispute is a final,
Summary Judgment: Final Orders. Partial
summary judgments are usually considered interlocutory. They
must ordinarily dispose of the whole merits of the case to be
Actions: Partition. Partition actions are
unique in that when title is contested, the action has two
distinct stages: first, the title determination and, second,
the division of the real estate, i.e., the
Neb. 640] 9. Actions: Parties: Final Orders: Appeal
and Error. With the enactment of Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 25-1315(1) (Reissue 2016), one may bring an appeal
pursuant to such section only when (1) multiple causes of
action or multiple parties are present, (2) the court enters
a final order within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. §
25-1902 (Reissue 2016) as to one or more but fewer than all
of the causes of action or parties, and (3) the trial court
expressly directs the entry of such final order and expressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay of an
Actions. Whether more than one cause of
action is stated depends mainly upon (1) whether more than
one primary right or subject of controversy is presented, (2)
whether recovery on one ground would bar recovery on the
other, (3) whether the same evidence would support the
different counts, and (4) whether separate causes of action
could be maintained for separate relief.
Final Orders: Time: Appeal and Error. An
appeal must be filed within 30 days of the final order from
which an appeal is taken.
from the District Court for Douglas County: Gary B. Randall,
Kristopher J. Covi and Jay D. Koehn, of McGrath, North.
Mullin & Kratz, PC, L.L.O., for appellant.
G. Ranum, of Croker, Huck, Kasher, DeWitt. Anderson &
Gonderinger, L.L.C., for appellee Guardian Tax Partners, Inc.
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Kelch,
and Funke, JJ.
district court entered a judgment in partition,
albeit one styled as a partial summary judgment order,
confirming ownership shares and implicitly directing
partition to be made. More than 30 days later, a party
obtained the court's [295 Neb. 641] certification of the
order as final under the statute governing cases involving
multiple claims or parties. Because the partition presented
only a single cause of action and the order settled the title
claims of all parties, the statute was not implicated and the
appeal time ran from the entry of the order. We therefore
lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.
treasurer's tax sale, Guardian Tax Partners, Inc.
(Guardian), purchased a 1-percent interest in certain Douglas
County real estate owned by Skrupa Investment Company (Skrupa
Investment). Later, Guardian obtained and recorded a
treasurer's tax deed to the 1-percent interest in the
then filed a complaint for partition against Skrupa
Investment, alleging that Guardian owned 1 percent and Skrupa
Investment owned 99 percent. The complaint also named as
defendants Frank Skrupa (using three versions of his name
with different middle initials) and Mary A. Skrupa, and
asserted that Frank and Mary may claim an interest in the
real estate. And the complaint also included the usual
formulation for unknown persons as additional parties. Mary
and the unknown parties were served by publication.
Investment and Frank filed an answer, alleging that
Guardian's tax deed was invalid because of Guardian's
failure to comply with certain statutory notice requirements.
With the answer, Skrupa Investment (but not Frank) filed a
counterclaim to quiet title, claiming 100-percent interest in
the property. The title determination depended upon whether
Guardian possessed a valid tax deed, which, in turn, depended
upon whether it gave the required statutory notice to the
filed a "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" on
Skrupa Investment's counterclaim and on the issue of
whether Guardian had a valid tax deed. After a hearing, the
district court entered an order on July 24, 2015, finding
that the tax [295 Neb. 642] deed was valid "regardless
of whether [Skrupa Investment] successfully rebutted the
presumption of the Tax Deed's validity, [because
Guardian] complied with all of the necessary statutory
requirements." Thus, the July 24 order resolved all
title issues ...