Sparks v. Mach

31 Neb.App. 461

982 N.W.2d 834

Kayleen SPARKS, appellant,

v.David MACH, Special Administrator of the Estate of Leo Mach, deceased, appellee.

No. A-21-1041.

Court of Appeals of Nebraska.

Filed November 15, 2022.

William J. Pfeffer, of Pfeffer Law Offices, Omaha, for appellant.

Kyle Wallor, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., Omaha, for appellee.

Moore, Riedmann, and Welch, Judges.

Moore, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Kayleen Sparks filed this negligence action against David Mach, as special administrator of the estate of the decedent, Leo Mach (Mach). At the time of Sparks’ original complaint, Mach's estate was closed and David had been discharged as special administrator. Sparks’ motion to reopen the estate and reappoint David was granted, and she subsequently filed an amended complaint, which she sought to relate back to her original pleadings. The district court found Sparks’ complaint to be a legal nullity and granted David's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Sparks and Mach were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Douglas County, Nebraska, on March 3, 2017. Mach died on September 6, apparently of causes unrelated to the accident with Sparks.

Mach's death prompted the opening of his estate. On November 20, 2018, Mach's son, David, was appointed special administrator of the estate. The estate was closed on December 11, 2019, and David was discharged as special administrator.

On February 24, 2021, Sparks filed a complaint against "DAVID MACH, Special Administrator for THE ESTATE OF LEO MACH," which alleged Mach's negligence in the March 3, 2017, accident. Upon learning that the estate had previously closed, Sparks filed a motion on March 4, 2021, in Douglas County Court to reopen the estate and reappoint David as special administrator. The motion was granted the following day. David was served with the original complaint on March 8.

On April 7, 2021, David filed a motion to dismiss, alleging a lack of jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, and a failure by Sparks to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Sparks filed an amended complaint on April 21, 2021. The amended complaint added the assertion that although David had been discharged as special administrator in December 2019, Mach's estate had been reopened and David reappointed as special administrator on March 5. The amended complaint was again filed against David as the special administrator of Mach's estate. On April 23, Sparks filed a motion requesting leave to again amend her complaint. David was served with the amended complaint the same day.

A hearing on David's motion to dismiss was held on May 14, 2021. Both parties agreed that David was not the special administrator of Mach's estate at the time Sparks filed her original negligence complaint. However, Sparks argued that because David was reappointed as special administrator of Mach's reopened estate between the filing and service of the original complaint, and because Sparks’ amended complaint related back to her original complaint, any alleged defect in the original complaint was cured. David argued that based on Nebraska case law, an estate must first be opened and a personal representative or special administrator appointed in order for there to be an entity to sue. Because David had been discharged as the special administrator from Mach's closed estate at the time Sparks filed her original complaint, David argued that the suit was a legal nullity and could not be related back to the original complaint. The court took the matter under advisement.

In a detailed order entered on May 27, 2021, the district court denied David's motion to dismiss. The court first noted that, because David had been reappointed as special administrator and was served by certified mail on March 8, the allegations in his motion to dismiss related to jurisdiction and service failed. Turning to David's allegation that Sparks had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the court observed that Nebraska appellate courts have not previously addressed whether a plaintiff may cure an improperly filed claim against a former special administrator of a closed estate or whether such a filing is a legal nullity and thus incurable. The court distinguished the facts of the present case with those cited by David. Because the court found the case involved a novel question of law, it declined to decide it on a motion to dismiss.

The court also granted Sparks’ motion for leave to amend and assumed, without deciding, that Sparks’ amended complaint stated a claim for relief.

On June 1, 2021, Sparks filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint added a paragraph related to Sparks’ age and life expectancy. David was served with the second amended complaint on June 3.

On July 2, 2021, David filed an answer to Sparks’ second amended complaint and a motion for summary judgment. In his answer, David noted that he was not reappointed as special administrator, and Mach's estate not reopened, until March 5—2 days after the statute of limitations for negligence had run. On July 15, Sparks filed responses to David's affirmative defenses and motion for summary judgment.

A hearing was held on David's motion for summary judgment on August 3, 2021. A bill of exceptions from this hearing is not included in our record. In an order entered on September 16, the district court granted David's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Spark's complaint with prejudice. Specifically, the court found that Spark's original complaint was an attempt to assert a claim against a closed estate and its discharged representative, and thus was a legal nullity. The court determined that neither the amended complaint nor the second amended complaint related back to the original complaint to cure the alleged defects because the original complaint was a nullity. The court further found that because Sparks failed to properly commence her claim against David as the special administrator of Mach's estate, she therefore failed to comply with the applicable 4-year statute of limitations, which ran on March 3.

On September 24, 2021, Sparks filed a motion to reconsider and vacate. While that motion was pending, Sparks appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to this court. On October 25, we dismissed Sparks’ appeal in case No. A-21-828 for lack of jurisdiction. On December 9, the district court entered an order denying Sparks’ motion to reconsider and vacate.

Sparks appeals.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Sparks assigns, reordered, that the district court erred in (1) finding that Sparks’ original complaint was a legal nullity, (2) finding that Sparks’ amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint, and (3) granting Mach's motion for summary judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court resolves the questions independently of the lower court's conclusion. Kozal v. Snyder , 312 Neb. 208, 978 N.W.2d 174 (2022).

An appellate court will affirm a lower court's grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

In reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Id.

ANALYSIS

The pertinent facts are undisputed, and we see this appeal as purely a question of law.

Legal Nullity.

Sparks alleges that the district court erred in finding her original complaint to be a legal nullity. She asserts that her corrective actions, namely moving to reopen Mach's estate and reappoint David, are specifically addressed in Nebraska case law, but were ignored by the court.

The Nebraska Probate Code provides the procedure for bringing a claim against a decedent's estate. Babbitt v. Hronik , 261 Neb. 513, 623 N.W.2d 700 (2001). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2404 (Reissue 2016) states in part that "[n]o proceeding to enforce a claim against the estate of a decedent or his successors may be revived or commenced before the appointment of a personal representative." An action is commenced on the date the complaint is filed with the court. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Cum. Supp. 2020). Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. In re Estate of Severson , 310 Neb. 982, 970 N.W.2d 94 (2022).

Nebraska appellate courts have long held that a personal representative is not a natural person, but, rather, an entity created by statute through a court order of appointment. See Pilger v. State , 120 Neb. 584, 585, 234 N.W. 403, 404 (1931) ("[e]xecutors and administrators in Nebraska are creatures of statute"). Thus, when an estate is closed and the personal representative discharged, there is no viable entity or person to sue. See, Correa v. Estate of Hascall , 288 Neb. 662, 850 N.W.2d 770 (2014) ; Estate of Hansen v. Bergmeier , 20 Neb. App. 458, 825 N.W.2d 224 (2013). We turn to the Nebraska appellate cases which discuss suits initiated against closed estates.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2457 (Reissue 2016) permits a special administrator to be appointed after notice when a personal representative cannot or should not act and also permits the appointment of a special administrator without notice when an emergency exists. A special administrator appointed by order of the court in any formal proceeding has the power of a personal representative except as limited in the appointment and duties as prescribed in the order. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2460 (Reissue 2016). In 2018, the county court appointed David as special administrator of Mach's estate for the purpose...