County of Lancaster v. County of Custer , 313 Neb. 622 ( 2023 )

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
02/24/2023 09:06 AM CST
- 622 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622County of Lancaster, Nebraska,
appellee, v. County of Custer,
Nebraska, appellant.
___ N.W.2d ___
Filed February 24, 2023. No. S-22-269.
1. Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error. Parties who wish to
secure appellate review of their claims must abide by the rules of the
Nebraska Supreme Court. Any party who fails to properly identify and
present its claim does so at its own peril.
2. ____: ____. Depending on the particulars of each case, failure to comply
with the mandates of Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D) (rev. 2022) may
result in an appellate court waiving the error, proceeding on a plain error
review only, or declining to conduct any review at all.
3. Appeal and Error. Where the assignments of error consist of headings
or subparts of arguments and are not within a designated assignments of
error section, an appellate court may proceed as though the party failed
to file a brief, providing no review at all, or, alternatively, may examine
the proceedings for plain error.
4. ____. Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a
nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integ-
rity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.
5. Jurisdiction: Statutes. Subject matter jurisdiction and statutory inter-
pretation present questions of law.
6. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court independently
reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.
7. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. It is the power and duty of an appel-
late court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before
it, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by the parties.
8. ____: ____. If the court from which an appeal was taken lacked jurisdic-
tion, then the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction.
9. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory language is to be given its
plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to
- 623 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are
plain, direct, and unambiguous.
10. Statutes. It is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into
a statute that is not warranted by the language; neither is it within the
province of a court to read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous out of
a statute.
11. ____. If the language of a statute is clear, the words of such statute are
the end of any judicial inquiry regarding its meaning.
12. ____. To the extent conflict exists between two statutes, the specific
statute controls over the general.
13. Jurisdiction: Counties: Contracts. Compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 23-135 (Reissue 2022) is mandatory, and the county board has exclu-
sive original jurisdiction, in cases against the county involving claims
arising out of contract and containing quasi-judicial questions of fact.
14. Contracts: Intent: Words and Phrases. The term “implied contract”
refers to that class of obligations that arises from mutual agreement and
intent to promise, when the agreement and promise have simply not
been expressed in words.
15. Restitution: Unjust Enrichment. An “implied-in-law contract,” also
known as a “quasi-contract,” is not a contract.
16. Claims: Restitution: Unjust Enrichment. Quasi-contract claims are
restitution claims to prevent unjust enrichment.
17. Restitution: Unjust Enrichment. Quasi-contractual obligations do not
arise from an agreement; instead, the law imposes them when justice
and equity require the defendant to disgorge a benefit that he or she has
unjustifiably obtained at the plaintiff’s expense.
18. Counties: Statutes: Liability. The liability of one county to another for
the support of a poor person is purely statutory.
19. Contracts: Statutes: Legislature: Intent: Presumptions. Although a
statute can be the source of a contractual right, a contract will be found
to exist only if the statutory language evinces a clear and unmistak-
able indication that the Legislature intends to bind itself contractually.
The general rule is that rights conferred by statute are presumed not to
be contractual.
20. Counties: Statutes. By statute, a county has a mandatory duty to pro-
vide for poor persons whether or not they are residents of the county.
21. Counties: Statutes: Liability. The right to enforce the liability of one
county to another county for expenses paid by the former in caring for a
poor person whose residence is in the latter county requires compliance
with statutory terms and conditions.
22. Statutes: Liability. When a statute gives a right and creates a liability
which did not exist at common law, and at the same time points out
- 624 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622a specific method by which the right can be asserted and the liability
ascertained, that method must be strictly pursued.
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County:
Andrew R. Jacobsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Steven R. Bowers, Custer County Attorney, for appellant.
Eric Synowicki, Deputy Lancaster County Attorney, and
Daniel James Zieg for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Funke, Papik,
and Freudenberg, JJ., and Polk, District Judge.
Cassel, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Upon moving to a different county in Nebraska, an indigent
individual applied for general assistance. That county furnished
assistance and requested reimbursement from the county where
the individual formerly lived. After denial of the request, the
furnishing county sued and obtained a summary judgment.
The other county appealed but failed to properly assign error.
Because we conclude that compliance with the county claims
statute 1 is not mandatory and jurisdictional when seeking reim-
bursement under the general assistance statutes, 2 the district
court possessed subject matter jurisdiction. Having elected to
review for plain error and finding none, we affirm the district
court’s grant of summary judgment.
II. BACKGROUND
1. General Assistance Programs
The county board of each county is “the overseer of the
poor.” 3 Each Nebraska county has general assistance programs
to provide benefits to indigent persons who are not eligible
1
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-135 (Reissue 2022).
2
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 68-104 to 68-158 (Reissue 2018).
3
§ 68-132.
- 625 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622for other state and federal assistance programs. 4 If a “poor
person”—the statutory terminology—meets the requirements
contained in § 68-131 and is eligible under the county’s general
assistance guidelines, the county board has a duty to provide
general assistance. 5
The general assistance shall come out of the treasury of
the county in which the poor person has legal settlement at
the time of applying for such assistance. 6 A person “who has
resided one year continuously in any county, shall be deemed
to have a legal settlement in such county.” 7
A county may be required to provide for a poor person even
if he or she does not have legal settlement in that county. 8
“[W]henever any poor person not having a legal settlement
in the county is found in distress, without friends or money,
so that he or she is likely to suffer, it shall be the duty of the
county board to furnish such temporary assistance . . . as it
shall deem necessary.” 9 Upon the poor person’s application for
relief, if the county board is unable to ascertain the person’s
last place of legal residence, “the county board shall proceed
in its discretion to provide for such poor person in the same
manner as other poor persons are directed to be provided
for.” 10 A different statute similarly provides that if a person
applies for aid in a county in which he or she has not estab-
lished a legal settlement, the person “shall be duly taken care
of by the proper authority of the county where he or she may
be found.” 11
4
See Salts v. Lancaster Cty., 269 Neb. 948, 697 N.W.2d 289 (2005).
5
See § 68-132.
6
See § 68-131.
7
§ 68-115(1).
8
See §§ 68-114, 68-144, and 68-146.
9
§ 68-114.
10
Id.
11
§ 68-144.
- 626 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622The Legislature required each county to adopt written stan-
dards of eligibility and assistance for the county’s general assist­
ance program. 12 The County of Lancaster (Lancaster County)
did so. Pursuant to its guidelines, Lancaster County entered
into a “Professional Services Agreement” with a health care
provider to provide general assistance to approved applicants.
2. Application for
General Assistance
On May 2, 2019, Michael Taul signed and submitted a
“Lancaster County General Assistance Application.” Taul’s
application listed an address in Lincoln, Lancaster County,
Nebraska, which the application showed to be his daugh-
ter’s address. But it also stated that he lived in Broken Bow,
Nebraska, for 10 years, from “06/09” to “05/19.” Broken
Bow is located in the County of Custer (Custer County). Taul
listed medical problems, stated that he was physically inca-
pable of working, and asserted that he could not afford to pay
his bills or to see a doctor. An eligibility worker approved
Taul’s application.
3. Assistance
Lancaster County provided general assistance services for
Taul. The total amount provided from May 6 to November
11, 2019, amounted to $31,422.08. Taul became ineligible to
receive further general assistance upon being approved for and
receipt of Supplemental Security Income.
4. Request for Removal
and Reimbursement
On July 11, 2019, the Lancaster County clerk sent a letter to
the Custer County clerk concerning Taul. The letter stated that
documentation showed Taul’s legal settlement was in Custer
County. It further stated:
12
See § 68-133.
- 627 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §[]68-144, this letter shall
serve as official notice to Custer County . . . that . . . Taul
has become chargeable as a poor person in a county, which
he or she has not established a legal settlement as [sic] the
time of applying for aid. Lancaster County . . . is request-
ing the authorities of Custer County . . . to promptly
remove . . . Taul from Lancaster County . . . and to pay
the expense accrued by Lancaster County . . . in taking
care of . . . Taul. Any assistance provided by Lancaster
County . . . to . . . Taul will be billed to Custer County
. . . for reimbursement.
The Custer County Attorney acknowledged receipt of the
letter. He requested that the Lancaster County clerk provide
documentation “required to make the determination for [Taul’s]
application.” The Lancaster County clerk responded via letter
and provided additional information.
A year later, the Lancaster County clerk sent a request for
reimbursement to the Custer County clerk. It included an
itemization of expenses paid on Taul’s behalf and requested
$27,179.11. On October 13, 2020, the Custer County clerk
provided written notice to the Lancaster County clerk that the
Custer County Board of Supervisors “disallowed your claim.”
The Lancaster County clerk subsequently sent a formal
“Demand for Reimbursement” to the Custer County clerk. By
letter dated November 25, 2020, the Custer County Attorney
informed Lancaster County that the Custer County Board of
Supervisors denied the claim under § 23-135, the county claims
statute. The Lancaster County Attorney responded, asserting
that general assistance claims under § 68-144 are not subject
to the provisions of § 23-135 because the expenses arise by
statute and not by contract.
5. Complaint and Answer
In April 2021, Lancaster County sued Custer County in
the district court for Lancaster County. The complaint alleged
- 628 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622that Custer County, as Taul’s county of legal settlement at the
time he was provided general assistance by Lancaster County,
had a statutory duty to pay the costs of the general assist­
ance provided to Taul. Lancaster County alleged that under
§ 68-145, it may sue Custer County for the general assistance
amounts expended on behalf of Taul. Lancaster County sought
judgment against Custer County in the amount of $26,928.31.
In Custer County’s responsive pleading, it set forth several
affirmative defenses. One claimed that Lancaster County failed
to follow § 23-135 to seek a remedy as provided by statute.
Another alleged that the proper forum was in Custer County.
6. Summary Judgment
Lancaster County moved for summary judgment. Following
a hearing, the court entered an order sustaining the motion.
The court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction
over the action, reasoning that the claim submission and appeal
procedures in § 23-135 did not apply to Lancaster County’s
claim for reimbursement. The court stated that Custer County
failed to meet its burden of producing admissible contradic-
tory evidence showing the existence of a material issue of fact
regarding compliance with the general assistance statutes, the
approval and adoption of the general assistance guidelines, or
compliance with those guidelines.
Custer County filed a timely appeal, and we moved the case
to our docket. 13
III. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Custer County’s brief contains no section for assignments of
error. It does not comply with our appellate court rules.
Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(1)(e) (rev. 2022) requires
an appellant’s brief to include, under the appropriate head-
ing, “[a] separate, concise statement of each error a party
contends was made by the trial court, together with the issues
13
See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
- 629 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622pertaining to the assignments of error.” The rule specifies
that “[e]ach assignment of error shall be separately numbered
and paragraphed.” 14 The rule cautions that “[c]onsideration of
the case will be limited to errors assigned and discussed in the
brief,” but that “[t]he court may, at its option, notice a plain
error not assigned.” 15
[1,2] Parties who wish to secure appellate review of their
claims must abide by the rules of the Nebraska Supreme
Court. 16 Any party who fails to properly identify and present
its claim does so at its own peril. 17 Depending on the par-
ticulars of each case, failure to comply with the mandates of
§ 2-109(D) may result in an appellate court waiving the error,
proceeding on a plain error review only, or declining to con-
duct any review at all. 18
Custer County’s brief contains headings in the argument
section which allege error by the trial court, but argument
headings are insufficient. We have consistently rejected head-
ings in the argument section as a sufficient substitute for
assignments of error contained in the proper place and prop-
erly designated. 19
[3] Where the assignments of error consist of headings or
subparts of arguments and are not within a designated assign-
ments of error section, an appellate court may proceed as
though the party failed to file a brief, providing no review at
all, or, alternatively, may examine the proceedings for plain
error. 20 We will review for plain error.
14
§ 2-109(D)(1)(e).
15
Id.
16
See Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916, 958
N.W.2d 378 (2021), disapproved on other grounds, Clark v. Sargent Irr.
Dist., 311 Neb. 123, 971 N.W.2d 298 (2022).
17
Id.18
Id.19
Id.20
Id.- 630 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[4] Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and
of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in
damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judi-
cial process. 21
[5,6] Subject matter jurisdiction and statutory interpretation
present questions of law. 22 An appellate court independently
reviews questions of law decided by a lower court. 23
V. ANALYSIS
1. Jurisdiction
(a) Appellate Court Duty
[7,8] It is the power and duty of an appellate court to deter-
mine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it, irre-
spective of whether the issue is raised by the parties. 24 If the
court from which an appeal was taken lacked jurisdiction, then
the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction. 25 Because of that
duty, we consider Custer County’s argument related to jurisdic-
tion, even though our review is otherwise limited to a search
for plain error.
(b) Parties’ Jurisdictional Paths
The parties disagree on whether the district court had subject
matter jurisdiction. They offer different jurisdictional paths.
(i) Lancaster County: § 68-145
Lancaster County relies on the general assistance statutes.
It highlights the language of § 68-145 stating that “the county
taking charge of such individual may sue for, and recover
21
REO Enters. v. Village of Dorchester, 312 Neb. 792, 981 N.W.2d 254(2022).
22
Heist v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 312 Neb. 480, 979 N.W.2d 772(2022).
23
Id.24
In re Estate of Scaletta, 312 Neb. 953, 981 N.W.2d 568 (2022).
25
Tyrrell v. Frakes, 309 Neb. 85, 958 N.W.2d 673 (2021).
- 631 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622from the county to which such individual belongs, the amount
expended for and in behalf of such poor person and in taking
care of such person.”
(ii) Custer County: § 23-135
Custer County contends that Lancaster County had to fol-
low the procedure in § 23-135 for payment of its claim.
Section 23-135 specifies that “[a]ll claims against a county
shall be filed with the county clerk within ninety days from
the time when any materials or labor, which form the basis of
the claims, have been furnished or performed . . . .” 26 If the
county board disallows a claim, the person—which includes
bodies politic and corporate 27—having a claim against the
county “may appeal from the decision of the board to the dis-
trict court of such county by causing a written notice to be
served on the county clerk within twenty days after making
such decision.” 28
(iii) District Court’s Determination
The court determined that the claim submission and
appeal procedures in § 23-135 did not apply. It reasoned that
Lancaster County’s duty to provide general assistance was a
statutory duty under the general assistance statutes and did not
arise out of any contract.
(c) Principles of Statutory Interpretation
[9-11] The parties’ arguments require interpretation of stat-
utes. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordi-
nary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to inter-
pretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which
are plain, direct, and unambiguous. 29 It is not within the
26
§ 23-135(1).
27
See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-801(16) (Reissue 2021).
28
§ 23-135(4).
29
JB & Assocs. v. Nebraska Cancer Coalition, 303 Neb. 855, 932 N.W.2d 71(2019).
- 632 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622province of a court to read a meaning into a statute that is
not warranted by the language; neither is it within the prov-
ince of a court to read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous
out of a statute. 30 If the language of a statute is clear, the words
of such statute are the end of any judicial inquiry regarding
its meaning. 31
(d) Specific Statute Versus
General Statute
[12] To the extent conflict exists between two statutes, the
specific statute controls over the general. 32 During oral argu-
ment, the parties took different positions regarding which stat-
ute, § 23-135 or § 68-145, was the more specific statute. We
see no conflict. If the county claim procedure is required to be
followed, the statutes can be read together.
(e) When Is County Claim
Procedure Mandatory?
The county claims statute has ancient roots. The Legislature
enacted a precursor to § 23-135 in 1879. 33 Long ago, we
declared that the county claims statute applied to “claims origi-
nating in contract, express or implied, between the claimant
and the county.” 34
[13] We have adhered to this interpretation. Compliance
with the county claims statute is mandatory, and the county
board has exclusive original jurisdiction, in cases against the
county involving claims arising out of contract and containing
quasi-judicial questions of fact. 35
30
Id.
31
Stewart v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 294 Neb. 1010, 885 N.W.2d 723(2016).
32
Heist v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., supra note 22.
33
See 1879 Neb. Laws, § 37, p. 366.
34
Douglas County v. Taylor, 50 Neb. 535, 545, 70 N.W. 27, 30 (1897).
35
See Jackson v. County of Douglas, 223 Neb. 65, 388 N.W.2d 64 (1986).
- 633 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622(f) Does Claim for Reimbursement
Arise From Contract?
A claim must arise out of contract in order for compliance
with the county claims statute to be required. Lancaster County
contends that the right to reimbursement arises under statute,
not contract. Custer County disagrees.
No express contract between Lancaster County and Custer
County is involved. But Custer County argues that there is
a contract between Taul and Lancaster County based on the
application for general assistance. Custer County highlights
that the application contained a subrogation provision for the
applicant’s claim against a third party, which provision is
required by statute. 36 However, the application did not estab-
lish a contractual relationship between Lancaster County—the
claimant here—and Custer County.
[14] Nor is there an implied contract between Lancaster
County and Custer County. “The term ‘implied contract’ refers
to that class of obligations that arises from mutual agreement
and intent to promise, when the agreement and promise have
simply not been expressed in words.” 37 Here, there was no
mutual agreement and intent to promise between Lancaster
County and Custer County. And an implied contract, which
refers to an “implied-in-fact contract,” should not be confused
with an “implied-in-law contract.” 38
[15-17] An “implied-in-law contract,” also known as a
“quasi-contract,” is not a contract. 39 Quasi-contract claims
are restitution claims to prevent unjust enrichment. 40 Quasi-
contractual obligations do not arise from an agreement; instead,
the law imposes them when justice and equity require the
36
See § 68-150.
37
City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., 282 Neb. 848, 856-57,
809 N.W.2d 725, 737 (2011).
38
See City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., supra note 37.
39
See id.
40
Id.
- 634 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622defendant to disgorge a benefit that he or she has unjustifi-
ably obtained at the plaintiff’s expense. 41 Thus, the defendant’s
liability arises under the law of restitution, not contract. 42
[18,19] The liability of one county to another for the support
of a poor person is purely statutory. 43 Although a statute can
be the source of a contractual right, a contract will be found
to exist only if the statutory language evinces a clear and
unmistakable indication that the Legislature intends to bind
itself contractually. The general rule is that rights conferred by
statute are presumed not to be contractual. 44
Courts in other states considering an action by one county
or town against another for support of the poor have concluded
that a county’s liability for the support of indigent individuals
is not contractual. These courts have stated that the obliga-
tion is purely statutory and that a demand for the support
of the poor has none of the elements of a contract, express
or implied. 45
We conclude Lancaster County’s claim for reimbursement
from Custer County is one arising in statute. It is quasi-
contractual in nature—an “obligation[] created by law for
reasons of justice.” 46 Accordingly, compliance with the county
claims statute is not mandatory.
41
See id.42
Id.43
See Otoe County v. Lancaster County, 78 Neb. 517, 111 N.W. 132 (1907).
44
United States Cold Storage v. City of La Vista, 285 Neb. 579, 831 N.W.2d
23 (2013).
45
See, e.g., Gunnison Co. v. Ouray Co., 53 Colo. 287, 125 P. 536 (1912);
Augusta v. Chelsea, 47 Me. 367 (1860); Lander County v. Humboldt
County, 21 Nev. 415, 32 P. 849 (1893) (superseded by statute as stated in
County of Lander v. Board of Tr. of Elko Gen. Hosp., 81 Nev. 354, 403
P.2d 659 (1965)); Hamlin County v. Clark County, 1 S.D. 131, 45 N.W.
329 (1890).
46
Clark & Enersen, Hamersky, S., B. & T., Inc. v. Schimmel Hotels Corp.,
194 Neb. 810, 813, 235 N.W.2d 870, 872 (1975).
- 635 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622Though not mandatory, the county claims route could have
been pursued. Two cases involving a county’s request for
reimbursement from a different county refer to the denial of
a claim by a county board and then an appeal to the district
court. 47 In one case, Frontier County presented a claim to the
county board of Lincoln County for expenses incurred in car-
ing for a pauper, the board rejected the claim, and Frontier
County “appealed to the district court and there filed a petition
for the amount claimed.” 48 Similarly, in the other case, Rock
County “filed its claim before the board of supervisors of [Holt
C]ounty for expenses in caring for an alleged pauper, who
became such in [Rock C]ounty, but who was a resident of [Holt
C]ounty.” 49 After the board rejected the claim, Rock County
appealed to the district court.
In neither case did we discuss jurisdiction, mention the
county claims statute, or proclaim that compliance with the
county claims statute was the exclusive way to reach the dis-
trict court. We observe that another case made no mention of a
claim’s being filed with a county board or of the action being
an appeal from a board’s decision. 50 We do not read these
cases as requiring the filing of a claim. We see no reason why
Lancaster County could not have pursued that route, if it had
chosen to do so. But as discussed above, only in cases against
the county involving claims arising out of contract and contain-
ing quasi-judicial questions of fact does the county board have
exclusive original jurisdiction. 51
47
See, Frontier County v. Lincoln County, 121 Neb. 701, 238 N.W. 317(1931); Rock County v. Holt County, 78 Neb. 616, 111 N.W. 366 (1907).
48
See Frontier County v. Lincoln County, supra note 47, 121 Neb. at 702,
238 N.W. at 318.
49
Rock County v. Holt County, supra note 47, 78 Neb. at 616, 111 N.W. at
366.
50
Otoe County v. Lancaster County, supra note 43.
51
Jackson v. County of Douglas, supra note 35.
- 636 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622(g) Compliance With
Chapter 68 Procedure
[20-22] By statute, a county has a mandatory duty to pro-
vide for poor persons whether or not they are residents of
the county. 52 The right to enforce the liability of one county
to another county for expenses paid by the former in car-
ing for a poor person whose residence is in the latter county
requires compliance with statutory terms and conditions. 53 We
have stated that “when a statute gives a right and creates a
liability which did not exist at common law, and at the same
time points out a specific method by which the right can be
asserted and the liability ascertained, that method must be
strictly pursued.” 54
The statutes set forth duties for the county where the poor
person is found and for the county of the poor person’s legal
settlement. The clerk of the county board where the poor per-
son has become chargeable has the duty to mail a notice to the
clerk of the county board of the poor person’s legal settlement
that “such person has become chargeable as a poor person, and
requesting the authorities of such county to promptly remove
such poor person and to pay the expense accrued in taking care
of him or her.” 55 If the poor person cannot be removed, “then
the county taking charge of such individual may sue for, and
recover from the county to which such individual belongs, the
amount expended for and in behalf of such poor person and in
taking care of such person.” 56
The ancient “pauper” statutes contained similar provisions.
The precursor statutes referred to “send[ing] a notice by mail
to the clerk” of the county commissioners or county board
52
See Salts v. Lancaster Cty., supra note 4.
53
See Frontier County v. Lincoln County, supra note 47.
54
Frontier County v. Palmer, 125 Neb. 716, 718, 251 N.W. 830, 830 (1933).
55
§ 68-144.
56
§ 68-145.
- 637 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622and requesting the authorities of the other county to remove
the pauper and “to pay the expense accrued.” 57 They pro-
vided that “the county taking charge of such individual may
sue for, and recover from the county to which said individ-
ual belongs.” 58
Lancaster County complied with the statutory procedure.
The Lancaster County clerk mailed a “Notice of Removal
and Payment” to the Custer County clerk. It stated that Taul
“has become chargeable as a poor person in a county, which
he or she has not established a legal settlement as [sic] the
time of applying for aid.” The notice requested that Custer
County authorities promptly remove Taul from Lancaster
County and pay the expense Lancaster County accrued in
taking care of Taul. Custer County did not remove Taul. (We
doubt that Custer County could have done so without Taul’s
voluntary participation and consent.) Nor did Custer County
pay expenses incurred by Lancaster County. Thus, § 68-145
authorized Lancaster County to “sue for, and recover from
the county to which such individual belongs, the amount
expended for and in behalf of such poor person and in taking
care of such person.” We emphasize that whether a county
seeking reimbursement for general assistance wishes to use
the county claims statute 59 or the direct action statute, 60 that
county must follow the procedure specified in § 68-144. Here,
it did.
As authorized by § 68-145, Lancaster County filed a law-
suit against Custer County to recover expenses for Taul’s
care. We conclude that the district court for Lancaster County
57
See, e.g., Comp. Stat. ch. 67, § 12 (1881); Rev. Stat. § 5806 (1913);
Comp. Stat. § 68-112 (1929).
58
See, e.g., Comp. Stat. ch. 67, § 13 (1881); Rev. Stat. § 5807 (1913);
Comp. Stat. § 68-113 (1929).
59
§ 23-135.
60
§ 68-145.
- 638 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
COUNTY OF LANCASTER V. COUNTY OF CUSTER
Cite as 313 Neb. 622had subject matter jurisdiction over Lancaster County’s action
for reimbursement under the general assistance statutes.
2. Plain Error Review
Having resolved the jurisdictional issue, we proceed to
the merits. But because no errors were properly assigned, we
review for plain error only. We find none.
The district court granted Lancaster County a summary
judgment. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction and that
§ 23-135 did not apply. For the reasons discussed above, we
agree that the district court had jurisdiction. The court next
determined that Lancaster County produced enough evidence to
demonstrate entitlement to reimbursement from Custer County
if the evidence were uncontroverted at trial. It further deter-
mined that Custer County failed to produce admissible contra-
dictory evidence showing the existence of a material issue of
fact regarding compliance with the general assistance statutes,
the approval and adoption of the general assistance guidelines,
or compliance with those guidelines.
We see no error plainly evident from the record. Accordingly,
we affirm the grant of summary judgment in Lancaster County’s
favor.
VI. CONCLUSION
We conclude that compliance with the county claims stat-
ute is not mandatory and jurisdictional when a county which
furnished general assistance to an indigent individual com-
plies with the general assistance statutes in seeking reimburse-
ment from the indigent individual’s county of legal settlement.
Because Lancaster County so complied and we see no plain
error, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment.
Affirmed.
Stacy, J., not participating.