Hollstein v. First National Bank of Aurora (In re Sanitary & Improvement District 65 of Sarpy County, Nebraska)

Eighth Circuit

Hollstein v. First National Bank of Aurora (In re Sanitary & Improvement District 65 of Sarpy County, Nebraska)

873 F.2d 209

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1989

DocketNo. 87-2616

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 873 F.2d 209 (Hollstein v. First National Bank of Aurora (In re Sanitary & Improvement District 65 of Sarpy County, Nebraska)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hollstein v. First National Bank of Aurora (In re Sanitary & Improvement District 65 of Sarpy County, Nebraska), 873 F.2d 209 (8th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At issue before the court is the interpretation of Nebraska law concerning the relative repayment rights the Nebraska legislature intended for bondholders and warrant-holders in situations where tax revenues are insufficient to fully satisfy both. Specifically, the issue concerns the claims of bondholders of a Sanitary and Improvement District (District) under the Nebraska statutes, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 31-701, et seq. (Reissue 1984), and whether they are superior to the claims of warrantholders of the District thereby requiring the debtor to treat the claims of bondholders with a priority over claims of warrantholders in a bankruptcy plan of adjustment. The bankruptcy court¹ and the district court² held that the statutes did create a superior right in bondholders over warrantholders for repayment purposes.

After briefing and oral argument, pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-219 (Reissue 1985), this court certified the following question to the Nebraska Supreme Court:

Whether the Nebraska statutes governing sanitary and improvement districts, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 31-701, et seq. (Reissue 1984), grant a priority of payment in favor of bonds over warrants so as to require that bonds be fully paid prior to utilizing revenues for payment of warrants.

On March 31, 1989, the Nebraska Supreme Court filed its opinion, holding that “the statutes of the State of Nebraska do grant a priority in favor of bonds over warrants so as to require that bonds be fully paid according to their terms prior to utilizing revenues for payment of warrants.” Hollstein v. First Nat’l Bank of Aurora, 231 Neb. 711, 718, 437 N.W.2d 512, 516 (1989).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

At issue before the court is the interpretation of Nebraska law concerning the relative repayment rights the Nebraska legislature intended for bondholders and warrant-holders in situations where tax revenues are insufficient to fully satisfy both. Specifically, the issue concerns the claims of bondholders of a Sanitary and Improvement District (District) under the Nebraska statutes, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 31-701, et seq. (Reissue 1984), and whether they are superior to the claims of warrantholders of the District thereby requiring the debtor to treat the claims of bondholders with a priority over claims of warrantholders in a bankruptcy plan of adjustment. The bankruptcy court¹ and the district court² held that the statutes did create a superior right in bondholders over warrantholders for repayment purposes.

After briefing and oral argument, pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-219 (Reissue 1985), this court certified the following question to the Nebraska Supreme Court:

Whether the Nebraska statutes governing sanitary and improvement districts, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 31-701, et seq. (Reissue 1984), grant a priority of payment in favor of bonds over warrants so as to require that bonds be fully paid prior to utilizing revenues for payment of warrants.

On March 31, 1989, the Nebraska Supreme Court filed its opinion, holding that “the statutes of the State of Nebraska do grant a priority in favor of bonds over warrants so as to require that bonds be fully paid according to their terms prior to utilizing revenues for payment of warrants.” Hollstein v. First Nat’l Bank of Aurora, 231 Neb. 711, 718, 437 N.W.2d 512, 516 (1989).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 F.2d 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollstein-v-first-national-bank-of-aurora-in-re-sanitary-improvement-ca8-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack