S-22-0248 Sieg H. Brauer, d/b/a Brauer Law Office (Appellant) v. Kent Hartmann, Hartmann Hay Co., LLC, and Kirk Hartmann (Appellees)
Appeal from the District Court for Hall County, Judge Rachel A. Daugherty, on appeal thereto from the County Court for Hall County, Judge Alfred E. Corey, III.
Attorneys: Siegfried H. Brauer (Brauer Law Firm for Appellant), John C. Hahn (Wolfe Snowden for Appellees Kent Hartmann and Hartmann Hay Co.) and no brief filed by Appellee Kirk Hartmann
Civil: Contingency Fee Agreement
Proceedings below: Appellees entered into a contingency fee agreement with Appellant, and Appellant sued. The district court affirmed the county court’s determination that Appellant was not entitled to recover from Appellees under the contingency fee agreement. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following statements of error: 1) The District Court erred in affirming the County Court decision denying Plaintiff fees under the contingent fee agreement. The Court failed to apply the Nebraska Rules for Discovery that require accepting facts admitted by a party as “conclusively established” when the County Court allowed conflicting evidence to dictate its rejection of Plaintiff-Appellant’s claim for fees under its contingent fee agreement to pursue crop loss damages for Defendant Hartmann Hay Company, LLC (HHC); 2) The District Court erred in finding that the County Court “found that as a result of the Settlement and Release Agreement signed in the federal court, there was insufficient evidence to show the amount of any benefit alleged to have been received;” 3) The County Court erroneously held that even though “the admissions prove the Defendants received a benefit, the Settlement and Release agreement completely states otherwise.” The referenced settlement makes no assertion that Defendants did not receive any benefit; 4) The County Court further erred considering evidence in conflict with the Defendant-Appellees’ conclusively established judicial admissions and then dismissing Plaintiff’s claim for contingent fees “as a conflict in the evidence exists regarding any benefits received;” 5) The District Court erred when it failed to apply and enforce the Nebraska Rules for Discovery that require finding that a party’s judicial admissions “conclusively establish” the facts admitted and that they are not subject to consideration of conflicting evidence. In violation of that rule the Court considered and favored what it considered conflicting evidence; 6) The District Court erred in finding “[t]here was no evidence presented to the lower court of a conclusive debt owed by the appellees to Wilbur-Ellis which was cancelled.” In fact, Defendants’ admissions established the obligation and its precise value; 7) The District Court erred in its implicit finding “[W]hile the Appellees received a benefit as a result of Brauer’s representation of them on the claim against them by Wilbur-Ellis, they entered a separate contract to pay Brauer on this claim on an hourly basis.” Defendants admitted that HHC was benefited by Plaintiff’s representation in obtaining the federal court settlement; 8) The District Court erred in finding “[t]here was no evidence of a debt being cancelled.” The finding disregards the Court’s obligation to enforce a contract according to its terms applying ordinary meanings in their common usage; 9) The District Court erred in concluding it “[could] not find that the lower court erred by finding that the appellant had failed to meet its burden as to the second cause of action, that he was owed attorney’s fees under the contingency fee agreement.” The Court disregarded its obligation to treat Defendants’ admissions as conclusively established; 10) The District Court erred in affirming the County Court’s decision denying Plaintiff-Appellant a judgment finding Kent Hartmann guilty of fraud on the third cause of action for the reason Plaintiff failed to prove he was owed attorney’s fees under the contingency fee agreement, and thus suffered no damage. Plaintiff’s evidence conclusively proves he procured value for HHC and the precise amount of that value; and 11) The District Court erred in failing to enforce the terms of the contingent fee agreement according to its terms.