Brinkman v. Brinkman , 302 Neb. 315 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    04/12/2019 12:07 AM CDT
    - 315 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    302 Nebraska R eports
    BRINKMAN v. BRINKMAN
    Cite as 
    302 Neb. 315
    Nicole Brinkman, appellant, v. Seth Michael Brinkman
    and K imberly M illus, Personal R epresentative
    of the Estate of M ichael R. Brinkman and
    as parent and next best friend of Seth
    Michael Brinkman, a minor, appellees.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed February 22, 2019.   No. S-18-476.
    1.	 Judgments: Jurisdiction. A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a
    factual dispute presents a question of law.
    2.	 Courts: Jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of jurisdictional priority, when
    different state courts have concurrent original jurisdiction over the same
    subject matter, basic principles of judicial administration require that
    the first court to acquire jurisdiction should retain it to the exclusion of
    another court.
    3.	 Jurisdiction. The rule of jurisdictional priority does not apply unless
    there are two cases pending at the same time.
    4.	 Jurisdiction: Dismissal and Nonsuit. The doctrine of jurisdictional
    priority does not apply if the first action terminates, is resolved, or is
    disposed of before the second action commences.
    5.	 Jurisdiction. Two pending cases fall under the doctrine of jurisdictional
    priority only when they involve the same “whole issue.” In other words,
    the two actions must be materially the same, involving the substantially
    same subject matter and the same parties.
    6.	 Constitutional Law: Courts: Jurisdiction. Because a district court’s
    general jurisdiction emanates from the Nebraska Constitution, it cannot
    be legislatively limited or controlled.
    7.	 Decedents’ Estates: Actions: Equity: Courts: Jurisdiction. The
    county courts have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district
    courts in common-law and equity actions relating to decedents’ estates.
    8.	 Decedents’ Estates: Wills: Declaratory Judgments: Courts. The
    district court has the power in a declaratory judgment action to
    - 316 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    302 Nebraska R eports
    BRINKMAN v. BRINKMAN
    Cite as 
    302 Neb. 315
    construe a will and make a determination of interests of beneficiaries
    in the estate.
    9.	 Wills: Courts. The county court has the limited power to construe a will
    for the benefit of the executor in carrying out the terms of the will.
    10.	 Courts: Jurisdiction. County courts can acquire jurisdiction only
    through legislative enactment.
    11.	 Decedents’ Estates: Wills: Courts: Jurisdiction. A county court has
    complete equity powers as to all matters within its probate jurisdiction.
    This includes the authority to construe a will when necessary to enable
    the settlement of an estate properly.
    12.	 Courts: Jurisdiction. While jurisdictional priority is not a matter of
    subject matter or personal jurisdiction, courts should enforce the juris-
    dictional priority doctrine to promote judicial comity and avoid the con-
    fusion and delay of justice that would result if courts issued conflicting
    decisions in the same controversy.
    13.	 Actions: Courts: Jurisdiction: Public Policy. The rule of jurisdictional
    priority is based on the public policies of avoiding conflicts between
    courts and preventing vexatious litigation and a multiplicity of suits.
    14.	 Courts: Jurisdiction. When a subsequent court decides a case already
    pending in another court with concurrent subject matter jurisdiction, it
    errs in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
    Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County:
    Leigh A nn R etelsdorf, Judge. Reversed and remanded with
    directions.
    Ryan P. Watson and Jeffrey A. Wagner, of Schirber &
    Wagner, L.L.P., for appellant.
    Joseph D. Thornton, of Smith Peterson Law Firm, L.L.P.,
    for appellees.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
    Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
    Freudenberg, J.
    NATURE OF CASE
    The daughter of a testator sought a declaration of her
    rights under her father’s will as an alleged devisee, claiming
    to be entitled to one-half of the residual share of her father’s
    - 317 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    302 Nebraska R eports
    BRINKMAN v. BRINKMAN
    Cite as 
    302 Neb. 315
    testamentary estate under a residuary clause in the decedent’s
    will. The estate asserted that the decedent unambiguously
    disinherited the daughter by excluding her name in the defini-
    tion of “‘children’” or “‘issue,’” while expressly including
    the decedent’s younger son’s name and “all children of mine
    born or adopted after the execution hereof.” After both parties
    moved for summary judgment, the district court found that
    the terms of the will were clear and unambiguous and that the
    daughter was expressly disinherited by the will’s provisions.
    Based on these findings, the court granted the estate’s motion
    for summary judgment. The daughter appeals.
    BACKGROUND
    The testator, Michael R. Brinkman, died on December
    23, 2016, leaving two known children, Nicole Brinkman and
    Seth Michael Brinkman. The testator’s will was admitted for
    probate, naming Kimberly Millus as personal representative.
    Millus is Seth’s mother, but not Nicole’s mother. Nicole is the
    older of the two children.
    The relevant portions of the will are as follows:
    ARTICLE I.
    The references in this Will to my “son” refer to my son,
    SETH MICHAEL BRINKMAN. The references in this
    Will to my “children” and/or my “issue” shall include my
    son, SETH MICHAEL BRINKMAN, and all children of
    mine born or adopted after the execution hereof.”
    ....
    ARTICLE IV.
    I give and bequeath all right, title and interest I may
    own at the time of my death, if any, in any automobile,
    furniture and furnishings, including pictures and works of
    art, articles of domestic use or adornment of every kind
    and character, recreational equipment, personal effects
    used by me about my person or home, and any collec-
    tions or memorabilia, wheresoever located as provided in
    the last dated writing in existence at the time of my death
    - 318 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    302 Nebraska R eports
    BRINKMAN v. BRINKMAN
    Cite as 
    302 Neb. 315
    signed by me which describes such item and distributee
    with reasonable certainty. To the extent any of said items
    are not so disposed of, I give said property to my son.
    To the extent any of such items are not so distributed,
    I direct my personal representative to sell or dispose of
    such items by such method and manner as my personal
    representative deems to be in the best interests of my
    estate, and any proceeds realized therefrom shall become
    a part of the residue of my estate.
    ARTICLE V.
    I give the residue of my estate to my issue, per stirpes.”
    (Emphasis supplied.)
    Nicole is not mentioned by name within the will.
    Nicole filed the present action seeking a declaration that she
    was entitled to an undivided one-half interest in the estate, less
    personal effects. She argued that though article I provided the
    term “‘issue’” to “include” Seth, it did not expressly exclude
    Nicole as “‘issue.’” (Emphasis supplied.) She later moved for
    summary judgment, asserting that she was not expressly disin-
    herited or disinherited by implication.
    Seth and Millus, on behalf of the estate, filed a resistance
    and counter-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the
    will was not subject to interpretation because it was not ambig-
    uous. Alternatively, Seth and Millus argued that if the will was
    ambiguous, Nicole was nonetheless expressly disinherited from
    taking under the testator’s will.
    The district court granted the estate’s motion for summary
    judgment. The court found that the language of the will was
    clear and unambiguous. The district court further found that
    it was clear that “issue” as used in article V was to be given
    the meaning set forth in article I and that article I defined
    “‘issue’” to mean Seth and any children born or adopted after
    the execution of the will. Because no children were born or
    adopted after the execution of the will, the court read “issue”
    in article V to mean only Seth. The court further found that
    Nicole was expressly disinherited by these provisions of the
    - 319 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    302 Nebraska R eports
    BRINKMAN v. BRINKMAN
    Cite as 
    302 Neb. 315
    will. The court concluded that based on the clear terms of the
    will, the entire residue of the estate passed to only Seth and
    that Nicole was not entitled to a one-half interest in the residue
    of the estate.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Nicole assigns that the district court erred in finding that (1)
    the will was not ambiguous and (2) she was expressly disinher-
    ited from her father’s will.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a factual dis-
    pute presents a question of law.1
    ANALYSIS
    [2] Though not originally raised by the parties, follow-
    ing their submission of supplemental briefing at our request,
    an issue of jurisdictional priority was identified. We do not
    reach the merits of Nicole’s assignments of error, because we
    conclude that the county court had jurisdictional priority over
    the district court in this matter. It is undisputed that a probate
    action pertaining to the will at issue was brought in county
    court before Nicole brought her declaratory judgment action in
    district court seeking interpretation of the same will, and that
    probate action is still pending in county court. Under the doc-
    trine of jurisdictional priority, when different state courts have
    concurrent original jurisdiction over the same subject matter,
    basic principles of judicial administration require that the first
    court to acquire jurisdiction should retain it to the exclusion of
    another court.2
    [3-5] This rule of jurisdictional priority does not apply
    unless there are two cases pending at the same time.3 The
    1
    Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 
    293 Neb. 973
    , 
    883 N.W.2d 1
    (2016).
    2
    Charleen J. v. Blake O., 
    289 Neb. 454
    , 
    855 N.W.2d 587
    (2014).
    3
    
    Id. - 320
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    302 Nebraska R eports
    BRINKMAN v. BRINKMAN
    Cite as 
    302 Neb. 315
    doctrine further does not apply if the first action terminates,
    is resolved, or is disposed of before the second action com-
    mences.4 Additionally, two pending cases fall under this doc-
    trine only when they involve the same “‘“whole issue.”’”5
    In other words, the two actions must be materially the same,
    involving the substantially same subject matter and the
    same parties.6
    Nicole conceded during oral argument that the probate of
    the will began in the county court and remained pending when
    Nicole brought her declaratory judgment action regarding the
    construction of the will in district court. Both the probate and
    the declaratory judgment actions involve the construction of
    the same will and a determination of the rights of the parties
    based on the will’s meaning. The cases involve substantially
    the same parties.
    Thus, there were two pending cases involving substantially
    the same subject matter and parties in two different courts. The
    only dispute presented by the parties concerning the elements
    of jurisdictional priority is whether the county and the district
    courts have concurrent original jurisdiction.
    The estate argues that the county court has exclusive origi-
    nal jurisdiction over the construction of the will and that the
    district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such mat-
    ters. We disagree.
    The estate relies on Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-517(1) and
    30-2211 (Reissue 2016). Section 24-517 provides in pertinent
    part: “Each county court shall have the following jurisdiction:
    (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction of all matters relating to
    decedents’ estates, including the probate of wills and the con-
    struction thereof . . . .” Section 30-2211(a) provides in part:
    “To the full extent permitted by the Constitution of Nebraska,
    the [county] court has jurisdiction over all subject matter
    4
    Id.
    5
    
    Id. at 464,
    855 N.W.2d at 596.
    6
    
    Id. - 321
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    302 Nebraska R eports
    BRINKMAN v. BRINKMAN
    Cite as 
    302 Neb. 315
    relating to (1) estates of decedents, including construction of
    wills and determination of heirs and successors of decedents,
    and estates of protected persons . . . .”
    We have held, however, that the Legislature’s purported
    grant of exclusive original jurisdiction to the county court in
    matters relating to decedents’ estates “‘is of suspect consti-
    tutionality insofar as it relates to matters that would involve
    either the chancery or common-law jurisdiction of the district
    courts.’”7 This is because the district court’s jurisdiction over
    such matters emanates from the Nebraska Constitution.
    [6,7] Neb. Const. art. V, § 9, states: “The district courts shall
    have both chancery and common law jurisdiction, and such
    other jurisdiction as the Legislature may provide . . . .” We
    have held that because a district court’s general jurisdiction
    emanates from the Nebraska Constitution, it cannot be legisla-
    tively limited or controlled.8 Thus, in a long line of cases, we
    found that the county courts have concurrent original jurisdic-
    tion with the district courts in common-law and equity actions
    relating to decedents’ estates.9
    [8] In this case, Nicole filed her complaint in district court
    seeking declaratory relief. Specifically, she sought a declara-
    tion of her rights under the decedent’s will. Neb. Rev. Stat.
    § 25-21,150 (Reissue 2016) specifically allows such an action,
    providing in pertinent part: “Any person . . . under a . . . will
    . . . may have determined any question of construction or valid-
    ity arising under the instrument . . . and obtain a declaration
    of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.” And we
    have held that the district court has the power in a declaratory
    7
    Ptak v. Swanson, 
    271 Neb. 57
    , 63, 
    709 N.W.2d 337
    , 341 (2006) (quoting
    In re Estate of Steppuhn, 
    221 Neb. 329
    , 
    377 N.W.2d 83
    (1985)).
    8
    
    Id. (citing Schweitzer
    v. American Nat. Red Cross, 
    256 Neb. 350
    , 
    591 N.W.2d 524
    (1999), and In re Estate of Steppuhn, supra note 7).
    9
    See 
    id. (citing Holste
    v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 
    256 Neb. 713
    , 
    592 N.W.2d 894
    (1999), and Iodence v. Potmesil, 
    239 Neb. 387
    , 
    476 N.W.2d 554
    (1991)). See, also, In re Estate of Steppuhn, supra note 7.
    - 322 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    302 Nebraska R eports
    BRINKMAN v. BRINKMAN
    Cite as 
    302 Neb. 315
    judgment action to construe a will and make a determination of
    interests of beneficiaries in the estate.10
    Nicole argues that the district court had exclusive original
    jurisdiction over her declaratory judgment action and that the
    county court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the inter-
    pretation of the decedent’s will. We likewise find no merit to
    this contention.
    [9] Nicole relies on cases wherein we have said that district
    courts have exclusive jurisdiction to construe wills. While this
    court has held the district courts of this state have the exclu-
    sive power to construe wills, we have also held that the county
    court has the limited power to construe a will for the benefit of
    the executor in carrying out the terms of the will.11
    [10,11] There is nothing in the Nebraska Constitution that
    limits the Legislature’s ability to grant to the county courts
    jurisdiction over the construction of wills. Article V, § 1, of the
    Nebraska Constitution provides in part:
    The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a
    Supreme Court, an appellate court, district courts, county
    courts, in and for each county, with one or more judges
    for each county or with one judge for two or more coun-
    ties, as the Legislature shall provide, and such other
    courts inferior to the Supreme Court as may be created
    by law.
    County courts can acquire jurisdiction only through legislative
    enactment.12 As already set forth, the Legislature has provided
    through §§ 24-517(1) and 30-2211 that county courts have the
    power to construe wills. And it is well settled that the county
    court has been given complete equity powers as to all mat-
    ters within its probate jurisdiction.13 This has long included
    10
    See Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home v. Graybill, 
    178 Neb. 79
    , 
    132 N.W.2d 304
    (1964).
    11
    See 
    id. 12 Iodence
    v. Potmesil, supra note 9; In re Estate of Steppuhn, supra note 7.
    13
    See Youngson v. Bond, 
    69 Neb. 356
    , 
    95 N.W. 700
    (1903).
    - 323 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    302 Nebraska R eports
    BRINKMAN v. BRINKMAN
    Cite as 
    302 Neb. 315
    the authority to construe a will when necessary to enable the
    settlement of an estate properly.14
    We find that the county court and the district court had exer-
    cisable concurrent jurisdiction over the construction of this will.
    All of the elements of jurisdictional priority are present in this
    case. Thus, the county court, as the first court to acquire juris-
    diction, retained it to the exclusion of the district court unless
    it deferred to the district court.15 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2429.01
    (Reissue 2016) provides that the district court may determine
    whether a decedent left a valid will if there is an objection to
    the probate of the will in county court and certain transfer pro-
    cedures are followed. But this case was not transferred to the
    district court pursuant to this section, nor does it involve the
    validity of a will, but, rather, its construction.16
    [12-14] While jurisdictional priority is not a matter of sub-
    ject matter or personal jurisdiction, courts should enforce the
    jurisdictional priority doctrine to promote judicial comity and
    avoid the confusion and delay of justice that would result if
    courts issued conflicting decisions in the same contro­versy.17
    The rule of jurisdictional priority is based on the public poli-
    cies of avoiding conflicts between courts and preventing vexa-
    tious litigation and a multiplicity of suits.18 A pragmatic jus-
    tification for the rule is efficiency in that proceedings earlier
    begun may be expected to be earlier concluded.19 When a
    subsequent court decides a case already pending in another
    court with concurrent subject matter jurisdiction, it errs in the
    exercise of its jurisdiction.20
    14
    See   
    id. 15 See
      Charleen J. v. Blake O., supra note 2.
    16
    See   § 30-2429.01.
    17
    See   Charleen J. v. Blake O., supra note 2.
    18
    
    Id. 19 Id.
    20
    See   
    id. - 324
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    302 Nebraska R eports
    BRINKMAN v. BRINKMAN
    Cite as 
    302 Neb. 315
    Because the county court did not transfer the case or oth-
    erwise relinquish its jurisdictional priority, the district court
    improperly impinged on the county court’s jurisdictional pri-
    ority in construing the will in this matter. The district court
    erred in its exercise of jurisdiction, and we reverse the order
    and remand this matter to the district court with directions to
    dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
    CONCLUSION
    We reverse, because we conclude that the county court has
    jurisdictional priority over the district court in construing the
    will in this matter.
    R eversed and remanded with directions.