S-20-0577 L&L Custom Builders, Inc. (Appellant) v. Tabe de Vries and Bonnie de Vries
Douglas County District Court, Hon. J. Russell Derr
Attorneys: Robert D. Mullin, Jr., Brian T. McKernan, Matthew G. Munro (McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, PC, LLO, for Appellant); Gregory C. Scaglione, Minja Herian, Quinn R. Eaton, Cody B. Nickel (Koley Jessen, PC, LLO, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants)
Civil: Statute of limitations; Evidence; Damages
Proceedings Below: The district court entered a judgment order affirming the jury verdict which determined that the Appellant had breached its contract with Appellees and awarded $418,175.00 for damages. The district court also concluded that Appellees claims were not barred by the applicable statute of limitations period in response to Appellant’s motion for directed verdict and post-trial motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The district court denied Appellant’s motion for a new trial and motion to alter or amend the judgement. The district court also denied Appellant’s motion to reconsider.
Issues on Appeal: Whether the district court erred in 1) entering judgment against Appellant in the amount of $418,175.00; 2) determining that Appellees were not barred from recovery as a result of the statute of limitations set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-223; 3) denying Appellant’s post-trial motions; 4) determining that the judgment amount should not be set-off by the amount of the settlement agreement entered into by the Appellees and TD2; 5) denying Appellant’s motion to reconsider and refusing to require Appellees to produce and accept into evidence the settlement agreement between Appellees and TD2; 6) determining that the judgment amount was not excessive and that it did not include nonrecoverable costs; and 7) the instructions provided to the jury on Appellant’s statute of limitations defense.
Issues on Cross-Appeal: Whether the district court erred in 1) excluding the Appellees’ expert witness testimony, exhibit evidence, and argument, which would have supported causation and damages relating to the stigma remaining on the Appellees’ property after repairs are completed; and 2) preventing the Appellees from submitting the issue of stigma damages to the jury.