CONTACT US AT:

635 S.14th Street
P.O. Box 81809
Lincoln, NE 65801

ph. (402) 475-7091
(800) 927-0117
fx. (402) 475-7098

latimer

 

NSBA Web Site

The NE Law Express is available to members of the Nebraska State Bar at no additional charge.

Nebraska State Bar Association NE Law Express for June 20, 2008

Use our Short Cuts to link to the area of today's
NE Law Express that interests you.

Cases affecting the following practice areas are summarized in today's NE Law Express:

These Bar Events links give you information about upcoming programs and activities:

For more information about LUNCH & LEARN SEMINARS, TELESEMINARS and LIVE WEBCASTS and to register contact Kathryn Bellman.

These links provide you with information on existing Member Benefits:

 
Case Summaries
Letter of Credit, Provisions Relating to Promissory Note, Promissory Estoppel

Back to ShortCuts

The primary issues presented in this appeal before the Nebraska Supreme Court, are whether the appellate Bank was authorized to issue a letter of credit where appellant/ borrowers promised to subsequently sign an amended promissory note (which they did not) and whether the Bank was entitled to reimbursement from the appellants/borrowers for that advance.

Cass Cty. Bank v. Dana Partnership, 275 Neb. 933 (2008)

Supreme Court Headnotes

Equity:

1.  Appeal and Error. In an appeal of an equitable action, an appellate court tries factual questions de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court, provided, where credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers and may give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.

Forbearance:

1.  Estoppel. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

Estoppel.

1.  Promissory estoppel requires that reliance be reasonable and foreseeable.

Appeal and Error.

1.  An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis which is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it.

Date Filed and Case No.: June 20, 2008. No. S-07-431.

Internet Address: http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/opinions/2008/june/jun20/s07-431.pdf

Court Appealed From: District Court for Cass County: Randall l. Rehmeier, Judge.

Attorneys for the Appeal: Brian T. McKernan for Dana Partnership, a Nebraska general partnership, et al., appellants. Steven J. Woolley, Alan E. Pedersen and Steven J. Riekes for Cass County Bank, a Nebraska Banking Corporation, appellee.

Supreme Court: Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, McCormack, and Miller-Lerman, JJ.

Authored By: Gerrard, J.

Summary: In this case, Cass County Bank (Bank) sought reimbursement from Dana Partnership, Reliant, and Anil K. Agarwal and Sudha Agarwal, husband and wife (owners of Dana and Reliant) (collectively appellants) for money it paid to Upland Construction Company (Upland) pursuant to a letter of credit. The Bank contended that the appellants are liable for the Bank’s extension and payment of the letter of credit because they promised to sign a promissory note guaranteeing the letter. In essence, the appellants claimed that they are not liable because they never signed the note.

     Following a bench trial, the court found that Dana Partnership, on behalf of Reliant, requested the expiration date on the original letter of credit be extended and that Dana Partnership was aware that an amendment to the promissory note would need to be signed. The court further determined, applying principles of promissory estoppel, that Sudha’s “promise to complete the necessary loan documentation . . . induced the [Bank] to issue the Replacement Letter of Credit, and the failure to enforce the . . . agreement to sign said documentation would act as an injustice in this case.” Accordingly, the court entered judgment in favor of the Bank and against the appellants. This appeal followed.

Did the district court err in finding that appellants reached an agreement with the Bank to issue the replacement letter of credit and to sign the amendment to the promissory note? Although Arun’s and Sudha’s testimony differed in certain respects from that given by Douglas Rasmussen, vice president of the Bank and the loan officer responsible for overseeing loans made to Dana Partnership, and Paul Sum, Upland’s owner and president, the trial court, based on its observation and judgement, clearly gave greater weight to Rasmussen’s and Sum’s testimony. In reaching their conclusion de novo, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered the fact that the trial court saw and heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testifying, and therefore gave significant weight to the trial court’s judgement as to credibility.

     The Court agreed with the district court’s factual finding and pointed to the evidence supporting Rasmussen’s and Sum’s versions of the facts. “Simply stated, in light of this evidence, and giving weight to the district court’s evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility, we agree with the district court and find that Sudha, on behalf of Dana Partnership, requested that the original letter of credit be extended, agreed to October 31, 2004, as the expiration date, and assured the Bank that the amendment to the promissory note would be signed.”

Would a replacement letter of credit and subsequently signed corresponding amendment to the promissary note been prohibited by the original promissary note? The appellants next argued that, even if Sudha asked the Bank to issue a replacement letter of credit and then promised to sign the corresponding amendment to the promissory note, this type of oral agreement is prohibited by the original promissory note and is therefore unenforceable. The Bank argued, however, that under the principles of promissory estoppel, the appellants cannot rely on the provision in the original note as a way of avoiding liability in this case.

     The Court agreed with the bank. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Promissory estoppel requires that reliance be reasonable and foreseeable. In the present case, given the particular circumstances and the appellants’ conduct, the Court concluded that the appellants are estopped from relying on the contractual provision at issue as a defense to their liability.

     “Given the circumstances under which the promise was made—in particular, the short amount of time remaining with which to extend the original letter of credit before the original letter of credit expired” wrote the Court “it was both reasonable and foreseeable that Sudha’s promise would induce the Bank to act in reliance upon it. And to refuse to enforce Sudha’s promise would work an injustice on the Bank.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the appellants are precluded from denying their obligation to reimburse the Bank for the payment made to Upland under the replacement letter of credit.

Conclusion: The Court concluded the district court did not err in finding that the Bank issued the replacement letter of credit pursuant to Dana Partnership’s request and that the appellants, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, are precluded from denying their liability for lack of a signature on the amendment to the promissory note. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.


Life Insurance, Policy Ownership, Obligations under Marital Decree

Back to ShortCuts

Here the Nebraska Supreme Court affirms a district court’s decision not to require a husband to submit to a physical examination so that the wife could obtain a life insurance policy on him, to cover his support obligations. The Court found that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-704 precluded compelling him to undergo such an exam.

Davis v. Davis, 275 Neb. 944 (2007)

Supreme Court Headnotes

Judgments.

1.  A court has discretion to require reasonable security for an obligor’s current or delinquent support obligations when compelling circumstances require it.

2.  Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court bases its decision upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.

3.  Statutes: Appeal and Error. Questions of law and statutory interpretation require an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the decision made by the court below.

Divorce:

1.  Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a district court’s postdissolution order regarding security for a support obligation de novo on the record to determine whether the trial court has abused its discretion.

Insurance:

1.  Contracts. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-704 (Reissue 2004) specifically requires adult insureds to consent to insurance policies on their lives unless they or their spouses are the owners of the policies.

Statutes:

1.  Legislature: Public Policy. It is the Legislature’s function through the enactment of statutes to declare the state’s law and public policy.

Courts:

1.  Legislature. A court is not free to ignore a legislative requirement of affirmative consent.

Date Filed and Case No.: June 20, 2008. No. S-07-529.

Internet Address: http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/opinions/2008/june/jun20/s07-529.pdf

Court Appealed From: District Court for Douglas County: J. Patrick Mullen, Judge.

Attorneys for the Appeal: William G. Dittrick and Kirk S. Blecha for Mary Kay Davis, appellant. John S. Slowiaczek and Virginia A. Albers for Henry A. Davis, appellee.

Supreme Court: HeaviCan, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, McCormack, and Miller-Lerman, JJ.

Authored By: Connolly, J.

Summary: Mary Kay Davis and Henry A. Davis marriage was dissolved in December 2006. The parties have significant assets and had two children. The 2006 Dissolution came about after the parties agreed to dismiss their 2001 dissolution proceeding after entering into a postmarital agreement, dividing their property for specific occurrences: continuation of the marriage, death, legal separation, or divorce.

     In 2002, however, after Mary Kay sought a declaration that the postmarital agreement was invalid, they signed an amendment to the postmarital agreement (collectively the agreements). In the agreements, Henry promised to transfer property to Mary Kay and she agreed that his business interests would be his separate property. Henry also agreed that upon the dismissal of all pending litigation, he would execute the Henry A. Davis Irrevocable Trust, which was attached. He also agreed to obtain a life insurance policy with a death benefit of at least $1 million, naming the trust (for the benefit of the parties’ children) as the beneficiary. The trust also required the trustee to pay the children’s legal guardian up to $5,000 a month for reasonable household expenses, subject to the trustee’s sole and absolute discretion.  After these agreements were made, the district court approved them, dismissed Mary Kay’s declaratory judgment action with prejudice, and dismissed the parties’ 2001 dissolution action without prejudice.

     In 2003, Mary Kay filed a second dissolution action. The district court incorporated the parties' postmarital agreements into its December 2006 decree. Under those agreements, it ordered henry (1) to pay $5,000 child support a month for both children and $3,000 a month for one child and (2) to pay $12,500 alimony a month for 106 months, to terminate upon either party's death or Mary Kay's remarriage.

     Later, in March 2007, Mary Kay moved for an order directing Henry to submit to a physical medical examination so she could obtain a life insurance policy on his life. At the hearing, Mary Kay’s attorney argued that Henry’s child support and alimony obligations exceeded $1.5 million and that a policy on Henry’s life would protect her if he died. He further argued that there was no proof that Henry had funded the trust for the children. But Henry’s counsel argued that there was a $1 million policy in place and that he had provided proof to Mary Kay during discovery.

     The court stated that security for Henry’s support obligations was a matter that could have been anticipated when the parties made the agreements; it overruled the motion.

Does Mary Kay have an insurable interest in Henry’s life? Mary Kay argues that the district court erred in failing to require Henry to secure his support obligations by submitting to a physical examination so she could obtain an insurance policy on his life. She claims she is not asking Henry to pay for the insurance coverage or to do anything for security other than to submit to a physical examination.

     Initially, the Nebraska Supreme Court clarified what this case is not about. “We are not dealing with a contempt proceeding. Mary Kay is not attempting to enforce the parties’ dissolution decree, which incorporated the parties’ agreement that Henry would fund the trust for their children through a life insurance policy. Instead of seeking to compel Henry to obtain insurance to fund the trust for their children, Mary Kay is seeking to own a separate policy on Henry’s life to secure his support obligations.” Thus, the Court interpreted her motion as primarily seeking security for Henry’s alimony obligations.

     The Court did not reach the issue of whether Mary Kay has an insurable interest in Henry’s life and assumed for this analysis that she does. But an insurable interest does not give her the right to own a policy on Henry’s life without his consent. Section 44-704 specifically requires adult insureds to consent to insurance policies on their lives unless they or their spouses are the owners of the policies. Mary Kay is not Henry’s spouse, and Henry would not be the owner of the policy.

     In arguing that § 44-704 does not apply, Mary Kay relies on cases in which a district court—as part of a dissolution decree— ordered an obligor to maintain a life insurance policy as security for a support obligation. However, the Court said that Mary Kay misses the critical distinction in these cases: The obligor, not the former spouse, was the owner of the policy. As such, these cases failed to support Mary Kay’s contention that a district court can compel obligors to consent to their former spouses’ owning policies on their lives.

     The Court added that it is the Legislature’s function through the enactment of statutes to declare the state’s law and public policy. Allowing courts to compel an obligor’s consent to a former spouse’s ownership of a policy on the obligor’s life would violate the Legislature’s express policy preference in § 44-704.

     The Court added that the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed this public policy issue in Hopkins v. Hopkins, 328 Md. 263, 614 A.2d 96 (1992). Maryland had a statute similar to Nebraska’s § 44-704 requiring the insured’s consent as a predicate to a valid life insurance contract. The Hopkins court stated that the consent requirement serves two purposes: (1) It prevents wagering on human lives and (2) it protects human lives by removing the temptations and risks associated with other persons’ having an interest in both the insured’s life and death. The Court agreed with the Hopkins court’s reasoning. “We recognize that courts often compel parties in a marital dissolution action to perform acts that would otherwise require their consent. But a court is not free to ignore a legislative requirement of affirmative consent.” Aside from the consent issue, and although they did not rely on privacy concerns in their analysis, they noted that another court has concluded that a state court order compelling an obligor to comply with a physical examination would violate his right of privacy. The Court concluded the district court did not err in overruling Mary Kay’s motion.

Conclusion: The Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not have authority to compel Henry to complete a physical examination so Mary Kay could obtain a life insurance policy on his life, naming herself as the beneficiary. Such an order would have violated this state’s public policy of requiring an insured’s consent to a policy on his or her life. Although public policy concerns were not the reason the district court overruled Mary Kay’s motion to compel Henry to submit to a physical examination, a proper result will not be reversed merely because it was reached for a different reason. AFFIRMED.


Promissory Note, Replacement Letter of Credit, Promissory Estoppel

Back to ShortCuts

The primary issues presented in this appeal before the Nebraska Supreme Court, are whether the appellate Bank was authorized to issue a letter of credit where appellant/ borrowers promised to subsequently sign an amended promissory note (which they did not) and whether the Bank was entitled to reimbursement from the appellants/borrowers for that advance.

Cass Cty. Bank v. Dana Partnership, 275 Neb. 933 (2008)

Supreme Court Headnotes

Equity:

1.  Appeal and Error. In an appeal of an equitable action, an appellate court tries factual questions de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court, provided, where credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers and may give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.

Forbearance:

1.  Estoppel. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

Estoppel.

1.  Promissory estoppel requires that reliance be reasonable and foreseeable.

Appeal and Error.

1.  An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis which is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it.

Date Filed and Case No.: June 20, 2008. No. S-07-431.

Internet Address: http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/opinions/2008/june/jun20/s07-431.pdf

Court Appealed From: District Court for Cass County: Randall l. Rehmeier, Judge.

Attorneys for the Appeal: Brian T. McKernan for Dana Partnership, a Nebraska general partnership, et al., appellants. Steven J. Woolley, Alan E. Pedersen and Steven J. Riekes for Cass County Bank, a Nebraska Banking Corporation, appellee.

Supreme Court: Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, McCormack, and Miller-Lerman, JJ.

Authored By: Gerrard, J.

Summary: In this case, Cass County Bank (Bank) sought reimbursement from Dana Partnership, Reliant, and Anil K. Agarwal and Sudha Agarwal, husband and wife (owners of Dana and Reliant) (collectively appellants) for money it paid to Upland Construction Company (Upland) pursuant to a letter of credit. The Bank contended that the appellants are liable for the Bank’s extension and payment of the letter of credit because they promised to sign a promissory note guaranteeing the letter. In essence, the appellants claimed that they are not liable because they never signed the note.

     Following a bench trial, the court found that Dana Partnership, on behalf of Reliant, requested the expiration date on the original letter of credit be extended and that Dana Partnership was aware that an amendment to the promissory note would need to be signed. The court further determined, applying principles of promissory estoppel, that Sudha’s “promise to complete the necessary loan documentation . . . induced the [Bank] to issue the Replacement Letter of Credit, and the failure to enforce the . . . agreement to sign said documentation would act as an injustice in this case.” Accordingly, the court entered judgment in favor of the Bank and against the appellants. This appeal followed.

Did the district court err in finding that appellants reached an agreement with the Bank to issue the replacement letter of credit and to sign the amendment to the promissory note? Although Arun’s and Sudha’s testimony differed in certain respects from that given by Douglas Rasmussen, vice president of the Bank and the loan officer responsible for overseeing loans made to Dana Partnership, and Paul Sum, Upland’s owner and president, the trial court, based on its observation and judgement, clearly gave greater weight to Rasmussen’s and Sum’s testimony. In reaching their conclusion de novo, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered the fact that the trial court saw and heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testifying, and therefore gave significant weight to the trial court’s judgement as to credibility.

     The Court agreed with the district court’s factual finding and pointed to the evidence supporting Rasmussen’s and Sum’s versions of the facts. “Simply stated, in light of this evidence, and giving weight to the district court’s evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility, we agree with the district court and find that Sudha, on behalf of Dana Partnership, requested that the original letter of credit be extended, agreed to October 31, 2004, as the expiration date, and assured the Bank that the amendment to the promissory note would be signed.”

Would a replacement letter of credit and subsequently signed corresponding amendment to the promissary note been prohibited by the original promissary note? The appellants next argued that, even if Sudha asked the Bank to issue a replacement letter of credit and then promised to sign the corresponding amendment to the promissory note, this type of oral agreement is prohibited by the original promissory note and is therefore unenforceable. The Bank argued, however, that under the principles of promissory estoppel, the appellants cannot rely on the provision in the original note as a way of avoiding liability in this case.

     The Court agreed with the bank. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Promissory estoppel requires that reliance be reasonable and foreseeable. In the present case, given the particular circumstances and the appellants’ conduct, the Court concluded that the appellants are estopped from relying on the contractual provision at issue as a defense to their liability.

     “Given the circumstances under which the promise was made—in particular, the short amount of time remaining with which to extend the original letter of credit before the original letter of credit expired” wrote the Court “it was both reasonable and foreseeable that Sudha’s promise would induce the Bank to act in reliance upon it. And to refuse to enforce Sudha’s promise would work an injustice on the Bank.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the appellants are precluded from denying their obligation to reimburse the Bank for the payment made to Upland under the replacement letter of credit.

Conclusion: The Court concluded the district court did not err in finding that the Bank issued the replacement letter of credit pursuant to Dana Partnership’s request and that the appellants, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, are precluded from denying their liability for lack of a signature on the amendment to the promissory note. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.