Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory
interpretation presents a question of law. An appellate court
has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion
irrespective of the decision made by the court below.
Equity: Estoppel. Although a party can raise
estoppel claims in both legal and equitable actions, estoppel
doctrines have their roots in equity.
Equity: Appeal and Error. In reviewing
judgments and orders disposing of claims sounding in equity,
an appellate court decides factual questions de novo on the
record and reaches independent conclusions on questions of
fact and law.
Legislature: Intent. The intent of the
Legislature is expressed by omission as well as by inclusion.
Equity: Estoppel. The doctrine of equitable
estoppel applies where, as a result of conduct of a party
upon which another person has in good faith relied to his or
her detriment, the acting party is absolutely precluded, both
at law and in equity, from asserting rights which might have
The elements of equitable estoppel are, as to the party
estopped: (1) conduct which amounts to a false representation
or concealment of material facts, or at least which is
calculated to convey the impression that the facts are
otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party
subsequently attempts to assert; (2) the intention, or at
least the expectation, that such conduct shall be acted upon
by, or influence, the other party or other persons; and (3)
knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts. As to
the other party, the elements are: (1) lack of knowledge and
of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in
question; (2) reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or
statements of the party to be estopped; and (3) action or
inaction based thereon of such a character as to change the
position or [304 Neb. 347] status of the party claiming the
estoppel, to his or her injury, detriment, or prejudice.
Waiver: Words and Phrases. Waiver is a
voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right,
privilege, or claim.
Waiver: Estoppel. To establish a waiver of a
legal right, there must be a clear, unequivocal, and decisive
act of a party showing such a purpose, or acts amounting to
an estoppel on his or her part.
from the District Court for Lancaster County: Lori A. Maret,
B. Creager, of Anderson, Creager & Wittstruck, PC, for
L. Welch and Kellie Chesire Olson, of Pansing, Hogan, Ernst
& Bachman, L.L.P., for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik,
and Freudenberg, JJ.
decades ago, Pamela Nelssen obtained a judgment against Hal
T. Ritchie. Nelssen never executed on the judgment, but
Ritchie made payments to her for many years. After Ritchie
stopped making payments, Nelssen filed a motion to revive the
judgment. The district court overruled Nelssen's motion
on the ground that the statutory deadline to revive the
dormant judgment had expired. Nelssen now appeals the
district court's decision. We affirm.
dispute arises out of a judgment Nelssen obtained against
Ritchie in the district court for Lancaster County in 1996.
The record suggests that Nelssen sued Ritchie for failure to
pay amounts owed under a promissory note, that Ritchie failed
to respond to the lawsuit, and that Nelssen obtained the
judgment as a result of Ritchie's default. The judgment
was in the amount of $200, 000, plus 6 percent interest.
Neb. 348] Ritchie did not immediately satisfy the judgment,
and Nelssen did not immediately execute on it. Instead,
Ritchie made payments to Nelssen beginning in 1996 and ending
in 2017. ...