In Re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Sim

Nebraska Supreme Court

In Re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Sim

448 N.W.2d 406, 233 Neb. 825, 1989 Neb. LEXIS 440

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1989

Docket88-216

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 448 N.W.2d 406 (In Re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Sim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Sim, 448 N.W.2d 406, 233 Neb. 825, 1989 Neb. LEXIS 440 (Neb. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In accordance with In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Sim, 225 Neb. 181, 403 N.W.2d 721 (1987), the county court appointed attorney Alan M. Wood as guardian and conservator of Maude Clevenger Sim, with limited powers. Sim appealed that appointment to the district court, which, on December 8, 1987, affirmed the judgment of the county court and assessed costs against the attorneys representing Sim for acting in bad faith. On December 18, 1987, Sim alone filed a motion for “new trial or rehearing,” which the district court overruled on February 3, 1988. On March 3, 1988, Sim and her attorneys filed their joint purported notice of appeal to this court. If Sim’s motion for new trial or rehearing was inappropriate, the notice of appeal was clearly filed out of time with respect to all rulings of the district court. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912 (Cum. *826 Supp. 1988) provides that in the absence of a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal to this court must be filed within 30 days from the district court’s ruling on the judgment of the county court.

We have held that a motion for new trial is proper only in a trial court. Accordingly, such motion is not properly presented to the district court where it sits as an intermediate appellate court and merely reviews the county court judgment. Collection Bureau of Lincoln v. Loos, ante p. 30, 443 N.W.2d 605 (1989). Neither is there authorization for a motion for rehearing in such circumstances. Therefore, a motion for new trial or rehearing is not authorized when the district court sits as an appellate court reviewing the judgment of the county court, and such motion therefore does not toll the time for appealing to this court; the time for such appeal begins to run from the date the district court rules on the judgment of the county court.

Accordingly, this purported appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed .

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

Per Curiam.

In accordance with In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Sim, 225 Neb. 181, 403 N.W.2d 721 (1987), the county court appointed attorney Alan M. Wood as guardian and conservator of Maude Clevenger Sim, with limited powers. Sim appealed that appointment to the district court, which, on December 8, 1987, affirmed the judgment of the county court and assessed costs against the attorneys representing Sim for acting in bad faith. On December 18, 1987, Sim alone filed a motion for “new trial or rehearing,” which the district court overruled on February 3, 1988. On March 3, 1988, Sim and her attorneys filed their joint purported notice of appeal to this court. If Sim’s motion for new trial or rehearing was inappropriate, the notice of appeal was clearly filed out of time with respect to all rulings of the district court. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912 (Cum. *826 Supp. 1988) provides that in the absence of a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal to this court must be filed within 30 days from the district court’s ruling on the judgment of the county court.

We have held that a motion for new trial is proper only in a trial court. Accordingly, such motion is not properly presented to the district court where it sits as an intermediate appellate court and merely reviews the county court judgment. Collection Bureau of Lincoln v. Loos, ante p. 30, 443 N.W.2d 605 (1989). Neither is there authorization for a motion for rehearing in such circumstances. Therefore, a motion for new trial or rehearing is not authorized when the district court sits as an appellate court reviewing the judgment of the county court, and such motion therefore does not toll the time for appealing to this court; the time for such appeal begins to run from the date the district court rules on the judgment of the county court.

Accordingly, this purported appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 N.W.2d 406, 233 Neb. 825, 1989 Neb. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-guardianship-and-conservatorship-of-sim-neb-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack