"The case is over and done." Nebraska Supreme Court overrules most recent iteration of family dispute over assets of local Omaha business and refuses to reinstate lawsuit against company that some relatives brought. Ferer v. Aaron Ferer & Sons, S-08-534, 278 Neb. 282 "Appellants also claim the district court erred in denying their motion for an order nunc pro tunc reinstating their ...cause of action for involuntary liquidation.The (trial court in its order) expressly stated that it intended to dismiss the sixth cause of action and that the dismissal was "no mistake." We find that the court has been extremely patient in dealing with appellants’ repeated attempts to retry issues that have previously been decided. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for an order nunc pro tunc. we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow appellants to resurrect causes of action that have merely been repackaged and rewrapped. The (plaintiffs' case of Aaron versus defendants) is over and done.

Initiative 300 vampire rises from the grave with LB 1174. Nebraska Unicameral. Senator Dierks introduced son-of Initiative 300, the family farm constitutional amendment with modifications to placate the eighth circuit court of appeals. The bill allows the disabled to participate in farm entities that are not corporations and allows out of state residents to participate as family farmers in this state.

Nebraska Court of Appeals in memorandum decision affirms alimony order for $2300 monthly for 20 months when Gage County District Court considered husband's personal draws from his business as income.

• Borgman v. Borgman, A-06-949

The husband regularly drew $40 to $50K per year from his incorporated pallet business and counted the draws as a corporate loan that he would repay with bonus salary. The divorce court considered the draws as income when considering its $2300 monthly alimony award to the wife. Even if the court did not factor in these draws when calculating child support the Court of Appeals affirms the alimony award and this reasoning. the “loans” is how the couple handled their money during the marriage, and thus, it would be incongruous for the courts to ignore this additional stream of money which has provided for the parties’ lifestyle and expenses. Steve’s argument appears to be that because the “borrowing and bonus” methodology was not considered for child support purposes it cannot be considered for alimony purposes. No authority is cited for this notion, and while Lisa might have made the opposite argument on appeal for increased child support, she did not. This is not to suggest that such an argument would have been successful, but only that Steve’s argument in this regard ignores the aspects of the court’s treatment of the “borrowing and bonus evidence” that are favorable to him. Accordingly, after consideration of the entire record, we are unable to say that the trial court’s award of alimony is untenable and an abuse of discretion.

Nebraska Supreme Court reverses Thomas County District Court's summary judgment ordering removal of directors of cattle feeding corporation. Neiman v. Tri R Angus, S-06-118, 274 Neb. 252. District court judge ordered corporate officers removed following dispute between shareholders and the directors. Although the defendants did not offer evidence disputing removal, the Supreme Court reverses the removal under 21-2086 proceedings. Because the statute includes grounds for fraud and because fraud requires heightened proof of intent, the Supreme Court concludes all grounds for removal of directors will require heightened proof. "Nebraska's statute on judicial removal of corporate directors, § 21-2086, is an extraordinary remedy. It is not for resolving mere differences of opinion between the shareholders and the directors regarding their exercise of business judgment. Instead, it is an unusual remedy that is to be granted only upon the shareholder’s production of sufficient evidence demonstrating that the director has engaged in “fraudulent or dishonest conduct or gross abuse of authority or discretion with respect to the corporation.” § 21-2086."

Follow up, On second appearance in the Supreme Court, black sheep member of Aaron Ferer & Sons metal trading company loses appeal seeking stock gifts from father who founded the company while giving a pass to the company's corporate counsel. Ferer v. Aaron Ferer &; Sons Co., S-05-730Father planned to issue stock gifts to three children in business but only if they stayed actively involved with the company. Father executed stock transfer documents but did not deliver them. After dissatisfied son left the company, he revoked his gift. Supreme Court agrees with Doulgas County District Court that gift transaction did not occur. The Supreme Court also gives a pass to the company's corporate counsel who had already noted the incomplete stock gift in its record books. "Aaron argues that Harvey’s alleged 1995 gift was complete and irrevocable when the transfers were noted by E&S in the maroon books. Assuming without deciding that the maroon books were the official stock records of AFSCO and that recording the transfer in those books could constitute constructive delivery, we nonetheless conclude that the gift was defeated by Harvey’s lack of a present donative intent.

Follow up: Nebraska supreme court to review malpractice verdict against McGrath North law firm. WOWT. The Douglas County District Court reduced the plaintiff's verdict from $1.6million to $229k. The Plaintiff appeals reducing the verdict, while the Defendant cross appeals to have the case dismissed. S-06-0130, Bellino et al v. McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC,et al. The defendant attorneys have included in their appeal that the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations because he was aware of the alleged malpractice more than two years before suing the attorneys and the continuous representation rule would not apply

The IRS audited the former owner of a construction company and the targeted principal alleges he ultimately won the audits, however he alleged that his former partner and the Bennington Bank had conspired to submit false business records to the IRS in order to harm him. The audited partner sued the bank and his former partner but the district Court dismissed on Rule 12b6. Nebraska Supreme court affirms 12b6 dismissal because the Plaintiff's complaint fraud, misrepresentation, and conspiracy apply only when the defendants make the misrepresentations to the Plaintiff and not to third parties. Supreme Court however does not charge the Plaintiff attorney fees because his theory of recovery was "plausible." Brummels v. Tomasek, S-05-1548 brumes set forth four separate claims for relief entitled “Fraud,” “negligent Misrepresentation,” “Fraudulent Concealment,” and “Conspiracy.” brumes alleged, inter alia, that appellees had prepared and submitted false information to the Internal revenue service (IRS), allegedly involving Plaintiff’s misappropriation of funds and unreported income, and that appellees concealed exonerating information from the IRS. Supreme Court concludes that the district court did not err in sustaining appellees’ rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss and in dismissing Brummels’ complaint. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tomasek and MJr’s motion for attorney fees. the decisions of the district court are affirmed

Complaint to pierce corporate veil post judgment not res judicata as to defendant’s after verdict conduct; even though Plaintiff’s counsel almost let a summary judgment slip though. Ichtertz v. Orthopaedic Specialists of Neb., S-05-1000, 273 Neb. 466. Surgeon formerly practicing in Grand Island sued Dr Bainbridge and his professional corporation. The court directed a verdict favorable to Dr Bainbridge but hit his corporation with a judgment exceeding $600k. Later plaintiff sued Dr Bainbridge again seeking to pierce the corporation veil. The plaintiff alleged Dr Bainbridge diverted corporate assets after the jury verdict to make the plaintiffs judgment uncollectible. Nebraska Supreme Court reverses Hall County District Court dismissal of action, finding that complaint to pierce corporate veil alleged post judgment actions that were not res judicata from the first case. The Supreme Court notes that the plaintiff’s attorneys might have lost because they failed to object when the Hall County District court converted Dr Bainbridge’s 12b6 motion into a motion for summary judgment. Lucky for them, the Supreme Court doesn’t like summary judgments, even under the 2003 Nebraska rules of pleading. “(At the motion to dismiss hearing) the defendants offered into evidence the Exhibits (from the first trial that absolved Dr Bainbridge.) Ichtertz raised no objection to the offer. Ichtertz did not offer any exhibits after the district court asked his attorneys, and the parties were given time to submit briefs on the motion. Ichtertz now claims the court erred in converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment by receiving evidence outside the pleadings. Ichtertz was given an opportunity to present evidence and did not do so. We cannot determine from the record before us whether Ichtertz raised before the lower court the issue of conversion of the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. However, whether the court erred in its procedure regarding the motion to dismiss is not decisive of the matter, and we decline to resolve the cause on that basis.”