Beverly J. Seid v. Rita J. Seid and Judy L. Ramer

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court’s 2021 order provided further instructions to a receiver appointed in 2019 rather than appointing a new receiver. Because the appellants did not timely appeal the 2019 appointment and did not seek discharge of the receiver, the court found no jurisdiction to review the appointment and no abuse of discretion in the 2021 instructions. The order was affirmed and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. An order appointing a receiver is a final, appealable order, and an appeal from that order must be filed within 30 days. Because no appeal was taken from the 2019 appointment order, the court lacked jurisdiction to address its merits.
2. The February 2021 order did not appoint a receiver for 2021; it provided further instructions to the receiver appointed in 2019.
3. Appellants could not premise error on the district court's failure to discharge the receiver because they did not seek the receiver's discharge or otherwise invoke a procedure to obtain a final disposition of the main action.
4. The February 2021 instructions were not invalid merely because the receiver initially filed the motion for instructions rather than a party, because the parties sought relief at the hearing through the existing receivership and participated in the requested further action.
5. Any objection to notice of the motion for instructions was waived because appellants participated in the hearing and requested affirmative relief; in addition, the cited notice statute applied to an order appointing a receiver, not to the 2021 order providing instructions.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the existing receiver to solicit 2021 farm leases and investigate whether requested maintenance was necessary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the February 2021 order appointed a new receiver or merely provided further instructions to the receiver appointed in 2019.
2. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the 2019 receiver-appointment order when no appeal was filed within 30 days.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by instructing the existing receiver to manage the land for 2021 without a new appointment, without a separate determination of necessity, or without considering appellants' affidavits.
4. Whether the February 2021 order was invalid because it was not based on an application by a party or because appellants did not receive statutory notice.
5. Whether appellants waived any objection to notice by participating in the hearing and requesting affirmative relief.

Disposition

remanded