Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,342 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Nebraska State Categories







American National Bank v Medved

Case No. S-10-611 (NE S.Ct., Jul. 1, 2011)

These consolidated appeals arise from actions taken by American National Bank (ANB) to execute on a judgment against Michael Medved, an Arizona resident with business interests in Nebraska. Medved’s wife, Laura Medved (Laura), unsuccessfully sought to intervene in an action ANB filed against Medved in the district court for Douglas County. This action resulted in the issuance of charging orders against Medved’s transferable interest in three Nebraska limited liability companies. Laura also unsuccessfully sought to intervene in an action filed in the district court for Sarpy County. The Sarpy County action resulted in a garnishment of Medved’s wages. In Medved’s appeals and Laura’s cross-appeals, they argue that the Nebraska orders violated their rights under Arizona community property law. We conclude that under either Arizona or Nebraska law, there was no error in the enforcement of the judgment.

I. FACTS



1. Case No. S-10-611 (District Court for Douglas County)



In a 2008 complaint, ANB alleged that Medved; Paul Gardner; Highway Leasing, LLC (Highway); and Get Going, LLC, had defaulted on various loans and guaranties. Three of the loans had been guaranteed by Medved, Gardner, and Get Going (collectively Highway Loans). Medved and Gardner had also guaranteed a loan for Get Going (Get Going Loan). In addition, Medved had allegedly defaulted on a personal loan evidenced by a promissory note (Medved Loan). Approximately $2 million was alleged due on the Highway Loans, $76,580 was alleged due on the Get Going Loan, and $565,801 was alleged due on the Medved Loan. ANB sought judgments on all the loans and recovery of costs and attorney fees.

On November 14, 2008, Medved, Highway, and Get Going entered into a stipulation to settle the litigation and to enter judgment in the amounts agreed to be past due. The Douglas County District Court entered a judgment for ANB against Medved, Highway, and Get Going in the amount of $2,097,609.20 plus interest for the Highway Loans (Highway Judgment). The court entered a separate judgment for ANB against Medved personally in the amount of $574,068.38 plus interest for the Medved Loan (Medved Judgment).

On April 20, 2010, ANB filed three applications for charging orders with the Douglas County District Court. The applications sought to charge any transferable interest that Medved had in three limited liability companies—MMMM Holdings, LLC; MM Finance, LLC; and Medved Properties, LLC—with payment of the judgments entered against Medved. As of that date, ANB alleged that Medved owed $2,594,117.04 on the Highway Judgment and $704,421.22 on the Medved Judgment.
 

 

Judge(s): Kenneth C. Stephan
Jurisdiction: Nebraska Supreme Court
Related Categories: Civil Procedure , Civil Remedies , Domestic Relations , Finance / Banking , Property
 
Supreme Court Judge(s)
William Connolly
John Gerrard
Michael Heavican
Michael McCormack
Lindsey Miller-Lerman
Kenneth Stephan

 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Gregory Schatz

 
Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Leslie Hendrix Allen, Sala & Bayne, P.L.C.
Paul Sala Allen, Sala & Bayne, P.L.C.
Patrick Guinan Erickson & Sederstrom PC LLO
Heather Veik Erickson & Sederstrom PC LLO

 
Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
Steven Achelpohl
Nicole Jilek Abrahams, Kaslow & Cassman, L.L.P.
Aaron Weiner Abrahams, Kaslow & Cassman, L.L.P.

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
does not apply, because the promissory note signed by medved 31 wright, j., not participating. ingful time and in a meaningful manner'" before she could be on the highway judgment and $704,421.22 on the medved of the judgment. the promissory note included a provision that action resulted in the issuance of charging orders against legal issue is resolved differently under the law of two states. douglas cty. sch. dist. 0001 v. johanns, 269 neb. 664, 694 n.w.2d 668 appellee and cross-appellee, v. michael medved, highway, and get going in the amount of $2,097,609.20 plus it was to be governed by the law of new york. rejecting a not appeals from the judgment on the promissory note but pestal v. malone, 275 neb. 891, 750 n.w.2d 350 (2008). see neb. rev. stat. 21-2654 (supp. 2009). american nat. bank v. medved 813 for purposes of our analysis, we assume that medved's cite as 281 neb. 799 note precludes enforcement of the resulting judgment against 20 stat. ann. 25-215(c), "community property is liable for a separate debts or other liabilities of a spouse, incurred an commenced, we do not think that this fact dictates a different finance, which sought to garnish wages. the court sustained domesticated there, its law should apply to anb's attempts to 11 ings and distributions from the limited liability companies bank. against medved on the note was governed by nebraska law. because his spouse had not been joined in the new hampshire c. either spouse separately may acquire, manage, con- arizona, the court concluded that "[a]n arizona court may not amount due on the medved loan. medved's transferable interest in three nebraska limited liabil- on appeal. further, the district court did not err when it cite as 281 neb. 799 and that the judgment was therefore not tainted by the fact that ability against community property of a new york judgment on on the note against community property. district court entered a judgment for anb against medved, restatement, supra note 5, 95, comment c. at 283. cross-appealed. 6 all related guaranties were executed in omaha, nebraska, and provides as follows: which would have been such spouse's separate property and was therefore not prejudicial error. was not a proper ground to refuse to honor the new york had in three limited liability companies--mmmm holdings, by a promissory note (medved loan). approximately $2 mil- spouse while acting for the benefit of the marital community any of the following cases: in re margaret mastny revocable trust, 281 neb. 188, 794 n.w.2d 700 munity property law. we conclude that under either arizona 1. any transaction for the acquisition, disposition or had been married since 1987 and were residents of arizona at her contentions. the district court heard argument from her provision of ariz. rev. stat. ann. 25-215(d), which requires on the ground that the joinder requirement of ariz. rev. stat. district court in each of the consolidated appeals. filed july 1, 2011. nos. s-10-611, s-10-616. personally liable on the judgment. but the court rejected the we see no relevance to this argument, in that anb seeks to have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement ___ n.w.2d ___ rely on two cases, vikse v. johnson16 the motion to alter or amend to the extent that the previous appellate court decisions discussed above, the court concluded against community property under arizona law. under arizona law. thus, we find no basis in the record for the parties to a proceeding are absent, the district court has no nebraska advance sheets an arizona court upheld the enforce- [1,2] when there are no factual disputes regarding state directed to that issue. 4. parties: jurisdiction. if necessary parties to a proceeding are absent, the district would leave the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may lion was alleged due on the highway loans, $76,580 was that the arizona supreme court would most likely adopt the against two arizona residents. after the judgment was domes- orchard, 152 neb. 500, 41 n.w.2d 756 (1950). that the parties' choice of law will govern.4 nebraska advance sheets arizona law, which provides that "neither the community after september 1, 1973 but only to the extent of the value american nat. bank v. medved 803 appellate court reviews questions of law independently of the that she was deprived of this right because she was not joined comaker on the note and therefore could have no joint and 18 lorenz-auxier financial group v. bidewell, supra note 26, 160 ariz. at such character that the intervenor will lose or gain by the direct operation and rule, "[w]hen a claim on a contract is reduced to judgment, the 21 neb. 759, 651 n.w.2d 850 (2002). alberta securities com'n v. ryckman, 200 ariz. 540, 30 p.3d 121 (ariz. nebraska advance sheets 1. contractual choice-of-law provision a materially greater interest than the chosen state in the or obligation contracted by either of them. the question before and credit in the arizona courts. 2. case no. s-10-616 (district court 12 have been no reason for the district court to apply arizona law these consolidated appeals arise from actions taken by on may 28, 2010, the district court for sarpy county arizona notwithstanding the fact that his spouse had not been 810 281 nebraska reports cite as 281 neb. 799 due on the medved loan. anb sought judgments on all the marriage, legal separation or annulment. ment on this point incorporates their position that failure to same as that upon which her husband resisted enforcement of app. 2001). as noted, we assume for purposes of our analysis that the vikse v. johnson, supra note 16, 137 ariz. at 530, 672 p.2d at 195. process, to notice and an "`opportunity to be heard at a mean- sederstrom, p.c., and paul sala and leslie hendrix, of allen, 595, 742 n.w.2d 465 (2007). 11. ____. to be filed as a matter of right, a petition in intervention under neb. rev. [7-9] the medveds argue that because arizona is the matri- edge that this case differs from national fire union ins. joined in the canadian lawsuit. vikse v. johnson, 137 ariz. 528, 672 p.2d 193 (ariz. app. 1983). necessary to determine medved's liability on the note under stat. ann. 25-215(d). based upon its review of the arizona 804 281 nebraska reports enforceable against the defendant's community property in an action, or against both, in any action pending or to be an arizona resident with property situated in nebraska. prejudgment joinder of the arizona spouse in the action pros- interest of the indispensable party would leave the controversy 17 assets could not be charged or executed upon to satisfy anb's applying highway leasing, llc (highway); and get going, llc, had debts incurred outside of this state during the marriage counsel regarding her position that the proceedings would vio- refuse to recognize that judgment merely because arizona law under arizona law. medved argues that because he alone i. facts compliance with the joinder provisions of ariz. rev. stat. ann. although we have not been directed to any authority from district court for sarpy county erred in (1) sustaining anb's 3 company distributions. anb filed a motion to alter or amend, ter in litigation, in the success of either of the parties to 25 this principle is nebraska advance sheets id. at 108, 985 p.2d at 593. anb relies on three more recent decisions from a differ- that "the spouses shall be sued jointly" in an action on a debt restatement (second) of conflict of laws 187 at 561 (1971). determine whether the result would be different if arizona law christian v. smith, supra note 2; malena v. marriott international, 264 808 281 nebraska reports ment against an arizona resident was unenforceable in arizona heavican, c.j., connolly, gerrard, stephan, mccormack, laura's motion to intervene. in her cross-appeal, laura assigns patrick r. guinan and heather b. veik, of erickson & able or necessary party to a suit is one whose interest in the conclusion 46 am. jur. 2d judgments 459 at 750 (2006). see, also, glissman v. (2) the law of the state chosen by the parties to govern (f) denial of motions to intervene we take judicial notice of them pursuant to neb. rev. stat. independently of the lower court's conclusion. the action, and before the trial commences. for the reasons discussed, we affirm the judgments of the in medved's appeals and laura's cross-appeals, they argue that directed to that issue, unless either contract debts and otherwise act for the benefit of the retained earnings. american nat. bank v. medved 815 we adopt 187 and conclude that pursuant to the explicit have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement notice and an opportunity to defend."18 for sarpy county) plaintiff, the cause of action is extinguished and a new cause of action on the appellate courts have considered it. the medveds primarily christian v. smith, 276 neb. 867, 759 n.w.2d 447 (2008). on november 14, 2008, medved, highway, and get going law applied, and that the property sought to be charged was not wife's argument that the judgment was unenforceable against shumway.17 is clearly permissible under nebraska law. we must therefore the arizona anb seeks to enforce its judgment is somehow exempt under of laws, a court ought to satisfy itself that there actually is a difference between was not entitled to relief against his earnings and distributions the arizona supreme court on this point, several arizona community property because of noncompliance with ariz. rev. different result. in oyakawa v. gillett,20 suretyship. utes, ariz. rev. stat. ann. 25-214 and 25-215 (2007), and in case no. s-10-611, medved assigns, restated, that the york state court and subsequently domesticated in arizona, trol or dispose of community property or bind the com- spouse's debts incurred outside of [arizona] during the mar- ity companies. laura also unsuccessfully sought to intervene in unpatented mining claim or a lease of less than one year. their contractual rights and duties will be applied, even nebraska law. laura stated in an affidavit that she and medved alleging that the court lacked jurisdiction because anb failed 14 an individual, appellant, highway leasing, llc, 814 281 nebraska reports laura's motions to intervene did not deprive her of a substan- summonses and orders of garnishment in aid of execution to note in order to bind the marital community. in national union court has no jurisdiction to determine the controversy. of arizona, where they reside. anb argues that arizona law evidence from anb, medved, and laura. anb's evidence laura was not a approves it."27 after the hearing, the district court entered an order denying iv. analysis further stated that anb did not name or serve her in either the this state. brought in any of the courts of the state of nebraska, may the medveds argue that the nebraska judgment was improp- determined that, even if there had been a vehicular pursuit [5,6] but this does not end the inquiry, because these are absent agreement of the property owner to the contrary. 4 ii. assignments of error nebraska advance sheets 23 (2011). ought to satisfy itself that there actually is a difference between a. each spouse has the sole management, control and medved's wages and transferable interest in the nebraska or corporations, either by joining the plaintiff in claiming 13 nebraska advance sheets tial right32 8. ____: ____: ____. in answering any choice-of-law question, the court first asks in case no. s-10-616, medved assigns, restated, that the liability on the note because she was not joined. an indispens- 41, 43 (ariz. app. 1989). see ariz. rev. stat. ann. 25-215(a) and (b). contract between the parties is voluntarily surrendered and can- which provides: defendant, either before or after issue has been joined in laura's motion to intervene; and (5) finding that laura had no inconsistent with equity and good conscience.6 were applied. interests in nebraska. medved's wife, laura medved (laura), ent division of the arizona court of appeals which reach a law," the note provides: "this note will be governed by fed- 25-12,101 (reissue 2008). ariz. rev. stat. ann. 25-214 cite as 281 neb. 799 of its holding that a judgment entered by a canadian court was stat. 25-328 (reissue 2008) must be filed before the trial. property against which anb seeks to enforce its nebraska and miller-lerman, jj. and pursuant to ariz. rev. we have recognized that persons residing in different states signed the promissory note, the judgment could not bind the laura cross-appealed. law did not require that laura be joined as a party. there would 3. parties: words and phrases. an indispensable or necessary party to a suit is 758 n.w.2d 630 (2008). 9. jurisdiction: states. in conflict-of-law analysis, an actual conflict exists when a be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has medved filed a resistance to the applications. he alleged that from that of arizona with respect to the necessity for joinder obligation.10 district court for douglas county erred in (1) denying his cution of a promissory note. we do not understand this arizona sala & bayne, p.l.c., for appellant. but laura clearly had notice of the proceedings, because appellee and cross-appellant. the judgment debtor's spouse had not been joined in the new the relevant laws of the different states.12 30 with respect to joinder, and we therefore conclude that non- first noted that the indiana court had personal jurisdiction over nebraska advance sheets a judgment against medved in the amount of $574,068.38, demanding anything adversely to both the plaintiff and her presence as a party was not the appli- impress arizona procedural law upon a foreign judgment and the promissory note executed solely by medved on monial domiciliary state and the nebraska judgment was the interest upon which laura sought to intervene was the arizona law from satisfying medved's sole and personal debt. "[t]he obvious purpose of joining the spouses is to give each nebraska advance sheets the medveds argue that enforcement of anb's judgment nebraska advance sheets in national union fire ins. co. v. greene,25 ariz. rev. stat. ann. 25-215(d) in the new york litigation except in certain circumstances, none of which include the exe- case number. during the hearing, anb orally informed the 27 several liability on the note.8 deprived of her interest in community property. laura argues medved by mm finance. medved filed a timely appeal, and 2 15 (a) absence of laura's signature d. except as prohibited in 25-214, either spouse may affirmed. the medveds have made no allegation or offered any proof her contention that enforcement of the judgment would deprive 25-215(d) would not render the judgment unenforceable court reasoned that california community property law differed by clear and convincing proof."29 are presumed to be community debts, and the party who con- actual conflict exists when a legal issue is resolved differently community. in an action on such a debt or obligation the the judgment--a claim that under arizona's community prop- an were community property and, as such, were protected under thus, under arizona law, "debts incurred during marriage entered a separate judgment for anb against medved person- cite as 281 neb. 799 a california judgment could be enforced against community [a]ny person who has or claims an interest in the mat- loan (medved judgment). defaulted on various loans and guaranties. three of the loans whether a judgment entered by a federal court in indiana could 29 medveds' argument that the community property against which tends otherwise has the burden of overcoming the presumption lorenz-auxier financial group v. bidewell, 160 ariz. 218, 220, 772 p.2d (2005). and mm finance had property of and were indebted to medved. her of community property rights under arizona law. law applied to all issues, that arizona law did not apply, and the court held that and an intervention complaint setting forth the basis for her intervene in douglas county. we find no error in the evidentiary rulings challenged cite as 281 neb. 799 reasoned that the judgment could not be enforced, because to its conflicts of law provisions. this note has been accepted in a 2008 complaint, anb alleged that medved; paul gardner; on april 20, 2010, anb filed three applications for charg- contained provisions stating that they would be governed by the judgment. be rendered in the action.30 able basis for the parties' choice, or loan entered by the district court for douglas county on american nat. bank v. medved 805 reference to arizona law. under the heading "governing steven e. achelpohl for appellee laura medved. property, which we assume to be community property, regard- nebraska law. judgment and an order denying the applications for charging state in an action where both spouses were not joined. huntington nat. bank v. sproul, 116 n.m. 254, 861 p.2d 935 (1993). of that date, anb alleged that medved owed $2,594,117.04 favor of the plaintiff, "the cause of action is extinguished and a statute to require the signature of both spouses on a promissory in the proceedings to enforce the judgment. limited liability companies. for the reasons discussed, we specifically provided that it is to be governed by nebraska law. going, llc, doing business as mpg carriers, nebraska wages and his transferable interests in the nebraska 1989). both companies were entered on april 23. medved requested nebraska advance sheets overruled medved's motion to dismiss, again finding that laura for douglas county) in c & j travel, inc.,19 able party's interest, or which is such that not to address the erickson v. u-haul internat., supra note 2; yoder v. cotton, 276 neb. 954, under 81-8,215.01(5), kavan's actions were not a proximate under arizona's community property law. at a hearing which arguing that the court's ruling that a charging order is the promissory note would not bar the enforcement of a judgment be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. whether there is any real conflict between the laws of the states. from the limited liability companies, because they were com- nebraska advance sheets rule of 188, would be the state of the applicable law in (b) application of the law of the chosen state would the trial.31 consistent with restatement (second) of conflict of laws petition in intervention under 25-328 must be filed before stand this amount to refer to the judgment on the medved nebraska litigation or "the domestication of the nebraska judg- ing orders referred only to the medved judgment. medved nebraska advance sheets appeals from the district court for douglas county: on promissory note pursuant to neb. rev. stat. 25-328 (reissue 2008), she appeared through counsel and sought to intervene. in the ing order is the sole method of attachment for limited liability munity property belonging to him and laura and protected community property under arizona law. app. 1999). direct operation and legal effect of the judgment which may garnish wages owed to medved by mm finance, (3) failing 2. law applicable to enforcement of judgment on the promissory note is enforceable against the nebraska v. conclusion and that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate medved's american nat. bank v. medved 801 the spouse had not been joined and was entitled to full faith which with interest currently totaled $704,421.22. we under- enforce the original nebraska judgment, not a domesticated the enforcement of a judgment entered by a court of another us is whether, under arizona law, this provision would preclude mmmm holdings, mm finance, and medved properties; (3) see vanice v. oehm, 247 neb. 298, 526 n.w.2d 648 (1995). nebraska advance sheets and c & j travel, inc. v. court that it was no longer seeking a charging order in rela- note, guaranties, and stipulated judgment. he alleged that anb 28 conflict-of-law issues present questions of law. ally in the amount of $574,068.38 plus interest for the medved tractual choice-of-law provision. in gagan v. sharar,24 national union fire ins. co. v. greene, supra note 15. the court received evidence and heard argument from laura's the same errors. perfected a timely appeal from these orders, and laura cations sought to charge any transferable interest that medved c & j travel, inc. v. shumway, supra note 17. this is so "irrespective of pecuniary benefit to indispensable or necessary party. in a separate order, the court appeals relied on vikse in holding that a new hampshire judg- unsuccessfully sought to intervene in an action anb filed rev. stat. 25-328 (reissue 2008) is a direct and legal interest--an interest of the note merged into the judgment and it constitutes a new judgment is created. shall be satisfied: first, from the community property, and disposition rights of each spouse's separate property. this principle, the new mexico supreme court held that a their community property. their argument is based on the (b) effect of failure to join laura under the law of two states.14 we reach the same conclusion here. although we acknowl- tion under 25-328 is a direct and legal interest--an interest the promissory note was governed by nebraska law, and that the medveds argue that even if laura was not a necessary that medved's indebtedness on the promissory note which 2. judgments: appeal and error. an appellate court reviews questions of law american nat. bank v. medved 799 iii. standard of review intent with respect to that binder, after service of a peti- orders. medved filed a motion to dismiss the applications, ariz. rev. stat. ann. 25-215 provides: encumbrance of an interest in real property other than an a nebraska limited liability company, sole method of attachment to limited liability company dis- by lender in the state of nebraska." b. the spouses have equal management, control and if single. become a party to an action between any other persons 802 281 nebraska reports laura's motion to intervene. the court reasoned that nebraska claim that the judgment was unenforceable in arizona because 9 where the judgment debtor and his wife had moved after entry the district court conducted a hearing at which it received loans and recovery of costs and attorney fees. the relevant laws of the different states. 3. to bind the community, irrespective of any person's erickson v. u-haul internat., supra note 2; heinze v. heinze, 274 neb. the separate obligation of that spouse. debt incurred by one 187,5 and orders of garnishment in which she raised the same argu- 7 appellate court held that while due process did not require residents of arizona at the time the underlying action was interest, or which is such that not to address the interest of the indispensable party american nat. bank v. medved 807 in support celed by merger in the judgment and ceases to exist."9 nebraska advance sheets appellees, and laura medved, tion complaint, she alleged that she was married to medved, finding that the property which was the subject of the charging were not named as parties in the minnesota action. the court an action filed in the district court for sarpy county. the sarpy would violate their rights under the community property law ing the debt or obligation. 16 liable for the separate debts incurred by the other during mar- (1) the law of the state chosen by the parties to gov- laura assigns the same errors. pensable or necessary party to the action. in her cross-appeal, enforce its judgment in nebraska. we have noted that before 806 281 nebraska reports enforcement of anb's judgment of garnishment. he alleged the same defenses he raised in the 816 281 nebraska reports gregory m. schatz, judge. affirmed. that laura had no interest affected by the action and was not an orders was not community property under arizona law and that 985 p.2d at 595, quoting huck v. haralambie, 122 ariz. 63, 593 p.2d 286 the parties or the transaction and there is no other reason- rev. stat. ann. 12-1701 to 12-1708 (2003) and 25-215(d). apply to anb's attempt to enforce its judgment against medved, property law. similarly, laura filed a motion to intervene in the in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly judgment in nebraska constitutes community property under alleged due on the get going loan, and $565,801 was alleged ery of money damages is merged in a valid and final judgment in favor of the but when only one of the spouses incurs a debt during kaslow & cassman, l.l.p., for appellee american national see neb. u.c.c. 3-116 (reissue 2001). 196 ariz. 336, 996 p.2d 745 (ariz. app. 2000). vikse, decided in 1983, involved an arizona pro- entered an order denying the intervention and sustaining the nebraska advance sheets in nebraska action erty law, anb is barred from enforcing the judgment against against michael medved, an arizona resident with business stephan, j. this principle was cited by a promissory note executed by only one spouse. we conclude 8 arizona judgment. and to the extent that the medveds' argu- laura asked for an order finding that the community property cite as 281 neb. 799 meister v. meister, 274 neb. 705, 742 n.w.2d 746 (2007). community property. but he cites no arizona law in support party, anb's failure to join her in its action on the promissory property of spouses nor the separate property of one spouse is munity, except that joinder of both spouses is required in erickson v. u-haul internat., 278 neb. 18, 767 n.w.2d 765 (2009); motion to quash garnishment. the court found that a charg- reduced to judgment, the contract between the parties is voluntarily surrendered from garnishment. less of whether nebraska or arizona law is applied to the (a) the chosen state has no substantial relationship to ann. 25-215(d) had not been met, because their spouses garnishment proceedings in the district court for sarpy county. nebraska advance sheets the court then entered three charging orders directing had been guaranteed by medved, gardner, and get going was not an indispensable and necessary party, that nebraska that she was an indispensable or necessary party to the action 1. jurisdiction: states. when there are no factual disputes regarding state contacts, 800 281 nebraska reports was not followed in obtaining it."22 b. the community property is liable for the premarital 5 22 to apply arizona's community property laws, and (4) denying we begin by addressing the applicability and scope of the con- new cause of action on the judgment is created."11 a nebraska limited liability company, and get cite as 281 neb. 799 conclude that this argument is without merit, and the judgment a. the separate property of a spouse shall not be liable did not owe medved any earnings, but that it held $30,000 in legal effect of the judgment which may be rendered in the action. the community."28 mm finance submitted answers to interrogatories in which the medveds pled the applicability of two arizona stat- (collectively highway loans). medved and gardner had also mmmm holdings but not to the garnishment directed to mm ern their contractual rights and duties will be applied riage which would have been community debts if incurred york lawsuit, the court concluded that failure to comply with result. despite the medveds' arizona residence, the action on we agree with this reasoning, which is consistent proceeding. 5. contracts: judgments: merger. as a general rule, when a claim on a contract is ment if the petition results in a decree of dissolution of nebraska enforcement proceedings. accordingly, denial of laura sought to intervene in the action. in her interven- contention that the charging orders would violate her rights established that the medved loan, the highway loans, and jurisdiction to determine the controversy.7 entered into a stipulation to settle the litigation and to enter judg- orders. laura filed a motion to intervene and quash summonses troversy cannot be finally adjudicated without affecting the indispensable party's (d) existence of community debt motion to alter or amend the judgment, (2) permitting anb to (e) domestication of judgment in arizona that both were residents of arizona, and that medved's earn- arizona's community property law. on these records, we conclude that laura was afforded a mean- november 14, 2008. anb alleged that both mmmm holdings (2) entering charging orders against medved's interests in entering judgment in favor of the state. interest affected by the action and that she was not an indis- under arizona law. preceded the issuance of the charging orders, laura's counsel llc; mm finance, llc; and medved properties, llc-- enforcement under ariz. rev. stat. ann. 25-215(d), we reject eral law applicable to lender and, to the extent not preempted it stated that it owed medved wages and that $1,982.11 was ceeding to enforce a judgment entered by a minnesota court lorenz-auxier financial group v. bidewell, supra note 26, 160 ariz. at the nebraska orders violated their rights under arizona com- property in arizona notwithstanding the fact that the judgment is a community obligation whether or not the other spouse national union fire ins. co. v. greene, 195 ariz. 105, 985 p.2d 590 (ariz. because the promissory note merged into the judgment, the involved the enforce- disposition rights over their community property and have (c) laura's right to due process oyakawa v. gillett, 175 ariz. 226, 854 p.2d 1212 (ariz. app. 1993). cannot be finally adjudicated without affecting the indispens- with the statement found in restatement (second) of conflict approach taken in the three more recent cases. national union fire ins. co. v. greene21 arizona's community property laws did not apply; (4) denying guaranteed a loan for get going (get going loan). in addition, the charging order only with respect to the judgment for the a federal appellate court considered judgment. noting that the original suit had no connection with be enforced against arizona community property where only ingful opportunity to be heard in both proceedings regarding ment in the amounts agreed to be past due. the douglas county and canceled by merger in the judgment and ceases to exist. he alone, and not laura, had signed the underlying promissory the argument for the reasons discussed above. if necessary 19 the husband had been a party to the original suit. the court lower court's conclusion.3 of such character that the intervenor will lose or gain by the ecuted in new york, the spouse was entitled, as a matter of due medved properties, mmmm holdings, and mm finance to any property belonging to medved. mmmm holdings sub- riage."26 the husband, but not his wife, and that therefore she was not interest for the highway loans (highway judgment). the court entangling itself in messy issues of conflict of laws, a court counsel with respect to her interests under arizona community in [arizona]." may select the law of either state to govern their contract and douglas county proceeding, she filed a motion to intervene 2. any transaction of guaranty, indemnity or [10,11] the interest required as a prerequisite to interven- join laura in the original action voids the judgment or bars its against medved through charging orders and wage garnishment if the particular issue is one which the parties could not vits for garnishee summons, alleging that anb had recovered order should not apply to the garnishment of wages owed to the marriage, "it does not necessarily follow that the debt is american nat. bank v. medved 809 the court in alberta securities com'n v. ryckman23 fire ins. co. v. greene,15 c. the community property is liable for a spouse's tion of whether the law of nebraska or that of arizona should 220, 772 p.2d at 43. thus, in answer- county action resulted in a garnishment of medved's wages. what is sought by the complaint, or by uniting with the late her community property rights under arizona law. based or nebraska law, there was no error in the enforcement of co. and alberta securities com'n in that the medveds were second, from the separate property of the spouse contract- contacts, conflict-of-law issues present questions of law.2 medved had allegedly defaulted on a personal loan evidenced of his argument. ariz. rev. stat. ann. 25-214(c) specifically offered and the court received laura's affidavit in support of american national bank, a national banking association, nebraska advance sheets cite as 281 neb. 799 (2007). all relevant times relating to the litigation and judgment. laura ing orders with the douglas county district court.1 6. actions: damages: judgments: merger. when a cause of action for the recov- ticated in arizona, the judgment debtors resisted enforcement money damages is merged in a valid and final judgment in on april 22, 2010, anb filed two praecipes and affida- [3,4] that being so, we find no merit in laura's argument ing any choice-of-law question, the court first asks whether (2009); in re adoption of kenten h., 272 neb. 846, 725 n.w.2d 548 subject to garnishment. mm finance stated it did not have one whose interest in the subject matter of the controversy is such that the con- tributions should apply only to the garnishment directed to by federal law, the laws of the state of nebraska without regard aaron d. weiner and nicole seckman jilek, of abrahams, if the particular issue is one which the parties could which would have been community debts if incurred in of that spouse's contribution to the community property id. see donato v. fishburn, 90 ariz. 210, 367 p.2d 245 (1961). defendants in resisting the claim of the plaintiff, or by hearings and alleged that the funds asked for were exempt debtor's spouse had not been a party to the california suit. the decided in 1989, the same division of the arizona court of 220, 772 p.2d at 43. see, also, schlaefer v. financial management service, the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties. 1. case no. s-10-611 (district court choice-of-law provision in the note does not control the ques- to be filed as a matter of right, a affirmed. formed the basis of the judgment is not a community debt 24 determination of the particular issue and which, under the proceedings to enforce a judgment entered on the note, because limited liability companies constitute community property 812 281 nebraska reports mitted answers to interrogatories in which it stated that it erly domesticated in arizona, citing noncompliance with ariz. american nat. bank v. medved 811 judgment. nebraska advance sheets 1 (1979). 32 national union fire ins. co. v. greene, supra note 15, 195 ariz. at 110, ability of a judgment on a promissory note entered by a new koch v. cedar cty. freeholder bd., 276 neb. 1009, 759 n.w.2d 464 choice-of-law provision of the promissory note, anb's action gagan v. sharar, 376 f.3d 987 (9th cir. 2004). november 13, 2006, reflects his arizona address but makes no transfer medved's transferable interest to anb. the charg- 10. interventions. the interest required as a prerequisite to intervention under neb. douglas county proceeding on the applications for charging motion to dismiss anb's applications for charging orders; spouses shall be sued jointly and the debt or obligation of laws 95 that when a cause of action for the recovery of there is any real conflict between the laws of the states.13 for the separate debts or obligations of the other spouse, equal power to bind the community. 7. courts: jurisdiction: states. before entangling itself in messy issues of conflict see emery v. mangiameli, 218 neb. 740, 359 n.w.2d 83 (1984). from orders entered to enforce the judgment. as a general ment in arizona," which she referred to by a specific arizona that under arizona law, the absence of laura's signature on the tion to the guaranty judgment. anb stated that it was pursuing c & j travel, inc. v. shumway, 161 ariz. 33, 775 p.2d 1097 (ariz. app. cause of cotton's injuries. we affirm the district court's order against medved in the district court for douglas county. this subject matter of the controversy is such that the controversy provides that either spouse may separately bind the community ments asserted in her intervention complaint and motion to tion for dissolution of marriage, legal separation or annul- medved filed a motion to quash the summonses and orders with payment of the judgments entered against medved. as 10 choice-of-law provision in a promissory note does not apply in 26 american national bank (anb) to execute on a judgment to join laura as a necessary party.


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise