Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Donald V. Cain, Jr.'s declaratory judgment action concerning the interpretation and implementation of the court's prior mandate regarding the taxable value of his property. The court held that, even assuming Cain's claims were not an impermissible collateral attack and that an appeal was unavailable, mandamus was an equally or more serviceable remedy to compel the Tax Equalization and Review Commission to comply with the appellate mandate. The court declined to decide whether the Commission was properly dismissed as a party because that issue was unnecessary to resolve the appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly dismissed Cain's declaratory judgment action because another equally serviceable remedy was available.
- Whether an application for a writ of mandamus was a superior remedy for compelling the TERC to comply with the Nebraska Supreme Court's prior mandate.
- Whether the appellate court needed to decide whether Cain's action was an impermissible collateral attack, whether he could have appealed the TERC order, or whether dismissal of the TERC as a party was proper.
Holdings
- A declaratory judgment action will not lie where another equally serviceable remedy is available. Under the circumstances presented, mandamus was a superior remedy to the declaratory judgment action.
- An inferior tribunal has an unqualified duty to follow an appellate mandate and may be compelled by mandamus to perform that ministerial duty when the relator has a clear right to relief and no other plain and adequate remedy exists.
- The court was not required to decide whether Cain's action was an impermissible collateral attack, whether the TERC order could have been timely appealed, or whether the TERC was properly dismissed as a party because those issues were unnecessary to the disposition.
Key quotations
“An action for declaratory judgment will not lie where another equally serviceable remedy is available.” (829)
“Our cases hold that an inferior tribunal lacks any authority to take actions contrary to an appellate mandate.” (829-830)
“If, on the other hand, Cain obtained a writ of mandamus directing the TERC to modify its order to conform to his understanding of our opinion in Cain II, all would be clear.” (832)
Factual background
Cain owned several parcels of land in Custer County whose 2012 assessed valuations were challenged before the Tax Equalization and Review Commission. In a prior appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that the valuation of the property at issue was $951,719.10 and directed the TERC to direct the assessor to set the valuation at that amount. The TERC subsequently ordered that $951,719.10 was the taxable value, while Cain contended that the amount was the actual value and that agricultural-property valuation rules required a lower taxable value. Cain brought this declaratory judgment action seeking an interpretation of the prior mandate and an order directing the assessor to record the lower amount.
Procedural history
Cain sued the Custer County assessor and the Tax Equalization and Review Commission, alleging that they failed to comply with the Nebraska Supreme Court's mandate in Cain v. Custer County Board of Equalization, 298 Neb. 834, 906 N.W.2d 285 (2018). The district court dismissed the TERC as a party and, after receiving evidence on cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissed Cain's declaratory judgment action because another serviceable remedy—mandamus—was available. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed without deciding whether the action was an impermissible collateral attack, whether Cain could have appealed the TERC order, or whether dismissal of the TERC was proper.