S-19-0310, S-19-0311 Millard R. Seldin, et al. (Appellants) v. Scott A. Seldin (Cross-Appellant) and Theodore M. Seldin, et al. (Appellees)
Douglas County District Court, Judge J. Russell Derr
Attorneys: Jason M. Bruno, Robert S. Sherrets (Sherrets Bruno & Vogt, LLC, for Appellants); Bartholomew L. McLeay (Kutak Rock LLP, for Appellee, Scott Seldin); and Robert L. Lepp, Mathew T. Watson (McGill, Gotsdiner, Workman & Lepp, PC LLO) and Sean K. McElenney (pro hac vice, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP) for Appellees
Civil: Arbitration award; Attorney fees
Proceedings Below: On May 3, 2018, the trial court issued an order granting the motion to confirm and granting the Appellees a judgment in the amount of $2,997,031, plus interest. The order also denied the motion to vacate and awarded the Appellees attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the motion to vacate and seeking dismissal of the interim award applications. The following day, the court issued separate orders dismissing each of the interim award application cases. On February 28, 2019, the trial court issued an order denying Scott Seldin and Millard Seldin’s motion to alter/amend and setting the amount of attorney fees and costs awarded to the Appellees in the amount of $131,184.45.
Issues: The issues as assigned by the Appellant are whether 1) the “Sky Financial” award violates Nebraska public policy; 2) the arbitrators’ award of attorney fees exceeds the scope of the separation agreement; 3) the trial court erred in awarding the Appellee’s attorney fee sanctions under Neb. Rev. stat. 25-824; and 4) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the Appellees acting contrary to the separation agreement and the award.
On cross-appeal, Appellee/Cross-Appellant (Scott Seldin) assigns whether the trial court erred in failing 1) to modify or correct an evident material mistake in the description of “Respondents” in the final award relating to him, resulting in his joint and several liability for securities violations that the final award provides that he did not commit, or is based on ambiguity that allows damages to the other Appellees to which they are not entitled; and 2) to vacate the final award relating to the “Sky Financial” claim on the ground that the arbitrator was misbehaving and had prejudiced his individual rights.
On cross-appeal, Appellees/Cross-Appellants assign whether the trial court erred in 1) denying the Appellee’s motion for order nunc pro tunc; and 2) failing to award the Appellees their reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred.