Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
01/06/2023 09:04 AM CST
- 187 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
John Mai and MM NE LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company, appellees, v. Janice German
and Dawes County Abstract & Title, Inc.,
a Nebraska corporation, appellants.
___ N.W.2d ___
Filed January 6, 2023. No. S-22-017.
1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court affirms a
lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted
evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or
as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2. ____: ____. An appellate court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that
party’s favor.
3. Limitations of Actions: Appeal and Error. The question of which
statute of limitations applies is a question of law that an appellate
court must decide independently of the conclusion reached by the
trial court.
4. Limitations of Actions: Negligence. To determine whether the statute
of limitations for professional negligence, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-222
(Reissue 2016), applies to a plaintiff’s claim, a court determines whether
the defendant is a professional and was acting in a professional capacity
in rendering the services upon which the claim is based.
5. Limitations of Actions: Negligence: Words and Phrases. To determine whether a particular act or service is professional in nature, a court
applying Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-222 (Reissue 2016) looks to the nature
of the act or service itself and the circumstances under which it was
performed.
6. Limitations of Actions: Title: Negligence: Words and Phrases.
Abstracters’ performing title searches render “professional services”
- 188 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
and are subject to the limitations periods in
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-222
(Reissue 2016) for claims arising from these functions.
7. Limitations of Actions: Negligence: Words and Phrases. For purposes of
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-222 (Reissue 2016), an occupation is
not a “profession” unless the following elements are present: (1) The
profession requires specialized knowledge; (2) the profession requires
long and intensive preparation; (3) preparation must include instruction
in skills and methods of the profession; (4) preparation must include
scientific, historical, or scholarly principles underlying the skills and
methods of the profession; (5) membership in a professional organization is required; (6) a professional organization or concerted opinion
within an organization regulates and enforces standards for membership; (7) the standards for membership include high standards of
achievement; (8) the standards for membership include high standards
of conduct; (9) its members are committed to continued study; (10)
its members are committed to a specific kind of work; and (11) the
specific kind of work has for its primary purpose the rendering of a
public service.
8. Limitations of Actions: Words and Phrases. “Discovery,” in the context of statutes of limitations, refers to the fact that one knows of the
existence of an injury and not that one has a legal right to seek redress.
9. Limitations of Actions: Negligence: Words and Phrases. In a professional negligence case, “discovery of the act or omission” occurs when
the party knows of facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to the
knowledge of facts constituting the basis of the cause of action.
Appeal from the District Court for Dawes County: Travis P.
O’Gorman, Judge. Affirmed.
Victor E. Covalt III and G. Stephen Long, pro hac vice, for
appellants.
Amy L. Patras, of Crites, Shaffer, Connealy, Watson, Patras
& Watson, P.C., L.L.O., for appellees.
Michael D. Matejka and Erin Ebeler Rolf, of Woods Aitken,
L.L.P., for amicus curiae Nebraska Land Title Association.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Stacy, Funke, and
Papik, JJ.
- 189 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
Miller-Lerman, J.
NATURE OF CASE
John Mai and MM NE LLC (collectively Mai) brought this
action against Janice German and her company, Dawes County
Abstract & Title, Inc. (collectively German), arising from title
abstracting and issuing commitments and title insurance serv
ices German performed for a series of transactions from 1999
through 2012. The district court for Dawes County found that
Mai’s amended complaint stated a single cause of action for
professional negligence against German as an abstracter with
several theories of recovery; the 2-year statute of limitations
for professional negligence, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-222 (Reissue
2016), applied; even allowing for discovery, the complaint was
time barred; and German was entitled to summary judgment.
Mai appeals and contends that German was acting as a title
agent, not as an abstracter; abstracters are not professionals;
and in any event, German was not rendering “professional
services” subject to the limitations periods in § 25-222. We
agree with the district court that German was performing
abstracter services, and because we conclude that abstracters
of title provide “professional services” within the meaning of
§ 25-222, we affirm the order of the district court that found
the action was time barred and entered summary judgment in
favor of German.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background.
In a series of five transactions from 1999 through 2012,
Mai bought contiguous and connected parcels of real property
located in Dawes County. Mai individually bought parcels in
1999, 2000, and 2009, and MM NE (the LLC), of which Mai
is a member, bought the final parcel in 2012. In each trans
action, Mai used the services of German. German had been a
registered abstracter serving the area since 1982 and had been
a title agent since the mid-1980s. German performed records
searches for the parcels bought by Mai, but did not search the
- 190 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
road records of Dawes County and failed to discover a possible claim for a road based on an 1887 road petition. German
also provided title commitments and helped Mai buy title
insurance policies for each transaction.
Because the title commitments did not disclose any public
access to the properties, Mai obtained private easements and
spent over $100,000 to build a red rock driveway to access
his properties.
Dispute Over Driveways.
In 2016, a dispute arose between Mai and owners of two
neighboring properties about whether the driveway was a public county road or a private driveway. The neighbors wished to
use the driveway to obtain access to their properties and sought
permits from Dawes County. After it determined that the paths
the neighbors wished to use followed an open public road, the
county granted driveway permits to both neighbors.
The county’s decision was based in part on advice from
German. In the course of her work on behalf of the county,
German discovered a road petition filed in 1887 that purported
to establish a public road crossing over Mai’s properties. In late
January or early February 2016, German gave Mai a copy of
the 1887 road petition.
On October 17, 2016, Mai filed an action in the district court
for Dawes County to quiet title against the neighbors and the
county, disputing the grant of driveway access to the neighbors. As part of that litigation, Mai took German’s deposition
on November 20, 2017, and she testified regarding, inter alia,
the 1887 road petition and the consequent establishment of a
public road. Mai does not dispute that he was aware of the
contents of this deposition. The district court determined that
the county’s claim of a public road was valid. The Nebraska
Court of Appeals, in a memorandum opinion, affirmed the
orders of the district court. Mai v. Lecher, No. A-21-731,
2022
WL 3205129 (Neb. App. Aug. 9, 2022) (selected for posting to
court website). This court denied further review.
- 191 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
Lawsuit by Mai Against German.
Mai filed the action that is the subject of the present
appeal on August 30, 2019. Mai initially set forth a claim of
negligence against German, alleging that he would not have
constructed the driveway had German “reviewed the records,
completed her agreed road study, and performed her duties
as a registered abstracter in examining records and disclosing the existence of [the public road].” Mai later amended
the complaint and alleged that at the time of the title commitments to Mai, German was aware of the possible existence of
“ancient records” as to roads, failed to search such records,
and included an exception to the title coverage for claims by
the county related to public roads. The amended complaint
specifically alleged that “German breached her duties owed
to [Mai] in providing abstracting services of good faith and
due care.”
German filed a motion for summary judgment, in which
she asserted that Mai’s complaint was barred by the 2-year
statute of limitations for claims of professional negligence,
§ 25-222. The district court agreed with German’s assertion,
granted German’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the action.
The court first determined that the amended complaint set
forth a single cause of action for professional negligence with
multiple theories of recovery. It determined that as a registered abstracter, German’s services were “professional” under
§ 25-222 based on the existing Court of Appeals precedent of
Cooper v. Paap,
10 Neb. App. 243,
634 N.W.2d 266 (2001),
which applied § 25-222 to registered abstracters, as well as the
test articulated by this court in Wehrer v. Dynamic Life Therapy
& Wellness,
302 Neb. 1025,
926 N.W.2d 107 (2019).
Having determined that § 25-222 applied, the court determined that the present action was barred by the 2-year limitations period because German last provided services to Mai
in 2009 and to the LLC in 2012 and the action was not filed
until 2019. Referring to the undisputed evidence, the court
- 192 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
observed that Mai discovered the cause of action, at the latest,
by November 2017, when German was deposed in the course
of Mai’s first lawsuit. Thus, the discovery rule under § 25-222
would have extended the time for filing to 2018, 1 year after
discovery, and the court determined that Mai’s complaint filed
in 2019 was time barred and granted summary judgment in
favor of German.
Mai appeals.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Mai claims, summarized and restated, that the district court
erred when it granted German’s motion for summary judgment
based on the 2-year statute of limitations for actions based on
professional negligence under § 25-222.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
[1] An appellate court affirms a lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to
the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Carrizales v. Creighton St. Joseph, 312 Neb. 296,
979 N.W.2d
81 (2022).
[2] An appellate court reviews the district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.
Id.
[3] The question of which statute of limitations applies is a
question of law that an appellate court must decide independently of the conclusion reached by the trial court.
Id.
ANALYSIS
Mai appeals the district court’s decision which determined
that his claims were time barred under the statute of limitations for actions based on professional negligence. He contends that German was not providing “professional” serv
ices and should not have benefited from the 2-year statute
- 193 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
of limitations for actions for professional negligence under
§ 25-222. Instead, Mai asserts that another statute of limitations applies. See, e.g.,
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 (Reissue
2016) (providing limitations period for fraud).
Professional Negligence.
As an initial matter, we address the nature of Mai’s action.
The district court characterized the claims in the amended
complaint as two theories of recovery based on the cause of
action for professional negligence. We agree. Although Mai
now claims that he asserted a variety of other theories, the
gravamen of the amended complaint alleged, inter alia, that
Mai had an “ongoing professional relationship” with German
and that German “fail[ed] to perform her duties as a registered
abstract[e]r in examining records and disclosing the existence”
of possible claims of a public road. The amended complaint
is grounded in statements referencing duties and claims of
professional negligence that form the basis of each of Mai’s
stated theories of recovery, and the record of the summary
judgment proceedings contains no material evidence of intentional wrongdoing. The district court correctly analyzed the
claims as professional negligence arising from acts and omissions by German when she provided services to Mai related to
the properties.
Mai’s Claims Arise From German’s
Abstracting Services.
Having agreed with the district court that this case involves
negligence, we next consider the nature of the services German
provided. Specifically, we consider whether German’s services
under examination were those of an abstracter and, later in this
opinion, whether such services are those of a “professional”
subject to the statute of limitations for actions on professional
negligence under § 25-222.
Mai claims that German acted merely as a title agent in her
dealings with him and was not performing abstracting work.
- 194 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
The allegations in the amended complaint concern acts and
omissions arising from German’s title searches and reports.
There is no dispute that German was a registered abstracter.
We acknowledge that we have recognized that the roles of an
abstracter and title agent can overlap. In Heyd v. Chicago Title
Ins. Co.,
218 Neb. 296, 303,
354 N.W.2d 154, 158 (1984),
we stated:
[A] title insurance company which renders a title report
and also issues a policy of title insurance has assumed
two distinct duties. In rendering the title report the title
insurance company serves as an abstracter of title and
must list all matters of public record adversely affecting title to the real estate which is the subject of the title
report. When a title insurance company fails to perform
its duty to abstract title accurately, the title insurance
company may be liable in tort for all damages proximately caused by such breach of duty.
The overlap in duties is reflected in the statutory duties
found in Nebraska’s Title Insurers Act, see Neb. Rev. Stat.
§§ 44-1978 to 44-19,105 (Reissue 2021). See Cottonwood
Enterprises v. McAlpin,
111 N.M. 793,
810 P.2d 812 (1991)
(applying professional standard to title examiner based on
statutory duty to search title). However, given Mai’s allegations and the evidence from the summary judgment proceeding taken in a light most favorable to Mai, we agree with
the district court that the services at issue were those of an
abstracter. Accordingly, the provisions of the Abstracters Act,
see
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 76-535 to 76-558 (Reissue 2018) (Act),
rather than the Title Insurers Act, control the outcome in
this case.
In this case, German testified to the nature of her abstracting work and the circumstances under which it was performed.
As both a registered abstracter and a title insurance agent, she
noted differences in the end products or reports for an abstract
of title and a title insurance commitment. She explained that in
both activities, the search of the records uses the same process,
- 195 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
spans the same records, and follows a chain of title from the
beginning to the present. She searches property and tax records
including those with the register of deeds, district court records,
and treasurer’s records. This is consistent with the expert affidavit of Roy Hahn offered by Mai that acknowledged that in
Nebraska, “a title agent searching for a title commitment has
the same duty and responsibility as does an abstracter.”
In his argument, Mai now distances himself from the
amended complaint which centered on German’s activities as
a registered abstracter. Having examined the record, we agree
with the district court that the evidence on summary judgment showed German performed title search duties for Mai
in the manner of a registered abstracter and that there was no
genuine issue of material fact on this question. Having examined the pleadings and evidence in the record in a light most
favorable to Mai, we find no error in the determination by the
district court to the effect that German’s work as an abstracter
forms the basis of this action.
Abstracters’ Performing Title Reports Render
“Professional Services” Under § 25-222.
Turning to the central legal issue in this appeal, Mai asks
us to hold that registered abstracters’ abstracting title do not
provide “professional services” within the ambit of § 25-222.
We decline to do so.
Section 25-222 provides:
Any action to recover damages based on alleged professional negligence or upon alleged breach of warranty
in rendering or failure to render professional services
shall be commenced within two years next after the
alleged act or omission in rendering or failure to render
professional services providing the basis for such action;
Provided, if the cause of action is not discovered and
could not be reasonably discovered within such two-year
period, then the action may be commenced within one
year from the date of such discovery or from the date
- 196 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
of discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to
such discovery, whichever is earlier; and provided further, that in no event may any action be commenced to
recover damages for professional negligence or breach
of warranty in rendering or failure to render professional
services more than ten years after the date of rendering or
failure to render such professional service which provides
the basis for the cause of action.
We have noted that the Legislature did not provide a general
statutory definition of “professional” or state which occupations provide professional services. See Wehrer v. Dynamic
Life Therapy & Wellness, 302 Neb. 1025,
926 N.W.2d 107
(2019).
[4,5] To determine whether the statute of limitations for
professional negligence applies to a plaintiff’s claim, a court
determines whether the defendant is a professional and was
acting in a professional capacity in rendering the services upon
which the claim is based. Wehrer v. Dynamic Life Therapy &
Wellness, supra. To determine whether a particular act or serv
ice is professional in nature, a court looks to the nature of the
act or service itself and the circumstances under which it was
performed. Id.
[6] As we explain, we conclude that abstracters’ performing
title searches render “professional services” and that where, as
here, negligence is alleged, they are subject to the limitations
periods in § 25-222 for claims arising from these functions.
Specifically, because Mai’s claims stemmed from German’s
performance of professional services as an abstracter, § 25-222
was correctly applied.
In Cooper v. Paap, 10 Neb. App. 243,
634 N.W.2d 266
(2001), the Court of Appeals concluded that abstracters are
members of a profession and applied § 25-222 to registered
abstracters. The decision was based on, inter alia, the fact
that abstracters “provide a service to the public upon which
the public relies, and those duties require specialized knowledge and a license to provide such services.” Id. at 253, 634
- 197 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
N.W.2d at 274. The Court of Appeals also referenced other
jurisdictions that concluded that abstracters are professionals
or subject to the professional standard. See, e.g., Chapman v.
Alexander,
307 Ark. 87,
817 S.W.2d 425 (1991) (holding that
abstracters are professionals for purpose of statute of limitations); Eby v. York-Division, Borg-Warner,
455 N.E.2d 623
(Ind. App. 1983) (noting abstracters are professionals called to
give opinions). See, also, Bernard v. Char,
79 Haw. 371,
903
P.2d 676 (1995) (suggesting that professional negligence principles apply to abstracters); W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and
Keeton on the Law of Torts § 32 (5th ed. 1984) (noting professional negligence principles apply to abstracters of title). The
Legislature has not amended the professional services statute
of limitations following Cooper.
Mai argues that Cooper is no longer a correct statement
of the law because our decision in Wehrer v. Dynamic Life
Therapy & Wellness, supra, emphasized that an occupation is a
profession that benefits from § 25-222 only if it meets certain
factors. We reject Mai’s argument.
[7] Consolidating Nebraska cases, Wehrer explained that
an occupation is not a “profession” unless the following elements are present: (1) The profession requires specialized
knowledge; (2) the profession requires long and intensive
preparation; (3) preparation must include instruction in skills
and methods of the profession; (4) preparation must include
scientific, historical, or scholarly principles underlying the
skills and methods of the profession; (5) membership in a
professional organization is required; (6) a professional organization or concerted opinion within an organization regulates
and enforces standards for membership; (7) the standards for
membership include high standards of achievement; (8) the
standards for membership include high standards of conduct;
(9) its members are committed to continued study; (10) its
members are committed to a specific kind of work; and (11)
the specific kind of work has for its primary purpose the rendering of a public service.
- 198 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
Turning to this case, the statutory scheme in the Act concerning abstracters and the evidence demonstrate that abstracters of title satisfy the factors in Wehrer v. Dynamic Life
Therapy & Wellness,
302 Neb. 1025,
926 N.W.2d 107 (2019).
The Act provides a framework for regulating abstracters in
Nebraska. We refer to certain provisions of the Act as illustrative of our conclusion that abstracters satisfy the Wehrer factors and are professionals for purposes of the 2-year statute of
limitations in § 25-222.
The stated statutory purpose of the Act is “to safeguard the
welfare and property of citizens of this state and to [e]nsure
that abstracters serving the public meet minimum standards of
proficiency and competency.” § 76-536. The Act establishes an
“Abstracters Board of Examiners,” § 76-540, which is empowered to, inter alia, promulgate rules and regulations, § 76-541.
An applicant to become an abstracter must prove to that board
that he or she has at least 1 year of verified land-title related
experience, 1 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 2, § 001 (2018), and must
have a minimum of three satisfactory references. See § 76-542.
An applicant must pass a written examination no less than 6
hours long, comprising four sections: district court, county
court, legal descriptions, and general knowledge of the practice
of abstracting. 1 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 7, § 005 (2018). See,
also, §§ 76-541 and 76-543.
The board approves “professional development” programs
of continuing education, and a registered abstracter must complete credits every 2 years. § 76-544. Notably, the Legislature
used the word “professional” in § 76-544 to describe abstracters’ continuing education. Under § 76-551 of the Act, the board
may hold hearings and impose discipline on abstracters who
violate the Act or who are unfit to perform their duties.
Section 76-556 explains the gravity of abstracting and
provides:
A registered abstracter shall show each link in the
chain of title, and failure to do so shall render him or her
liable to any person injured by such omission. In adding
- 199 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
extensions to an old abstract, a registered abstracter
shall not be deemed to certify to or verify accuracy of
entries prior to the first date given in the certificate of
extension. When a registered abstracter relies upon the
numerical index alone to refer him or her to all entries
upon the records affecting the title to property, such reliance shall be at his or her peril. A registered abstracter
shall be liable for omission of notice of encumbrance in
an abstract.
The Act also guards against conflicts of interest by restricting the practice of abstracters; for example, district and county
judges cannot engage in the business of abstracting directly or
indirectly while holding office. § 76-502. See, also, § 76-504
(making county officials in counties over 5,000 in population
ineligible to compile abstracts of title).
The record in this case demonstrates the specialized knowledge and preparation required of an abstracter. German specifically described the specialized knowledge, often of a local
nature, an abstracter possesses. She stated that records are
not kept the same way in all counties and that abstracters
must know how to locate the relevant records. She explained
that an abstracter must be familiar with state marketable title
standards and use them when conducting title searches. See
§ 76-557. Hahn also opined that the standard of care for
abstracting requires the abstracter to understand the law surrounding real estate in order to assemble an abstract. He opined
that “[m]embers of the lay/general public do not have the experience or ability to make their own thorough search of public
records to determine title to and interests in real estate about
which they may be interested.”
Our cases have long recognized that abstracters are members
of a profession. In Heyd v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 218 Neb.
296, 302-03,
354 N.W.2d 154, 158 (1984), citing several other
jurisdictions, we said:
“The duty imposed upon an abstractor of title is a rigorous one: ‘An abstractor of title is hired because of his
- 200 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
professional skill, and when searching the public records
on behalf of a client he must use the degree of care commensurate with that professional skill . . . the abstractor
must report all matters which could affect his client’s
interests and which are readily discoverable from those
public records ordinarily examined when a reasonably
diligent title search is made.’ . . .”
(Emphasis supplied.) Abstracters must learn to conduct a proper
and in-depth search and examination of the public records and
to set forth in the abstract the facts which may relate to or
affect the title under investigation. Cooper v. Paap, 10 Neb.
App. 243,
634 N.W.2d 266 (2001). See 1 C.J.S. Abstracts of
Title § 8 (2016). They must learn and understand the law relating to conveyances, descents, devises, and other matters affecting the title to real property and be able to determine what
constitutes a lien or encumbrance. See Cooper v.
Paap, supra.
The foregoing is supported in our record by the affidavit of
Mai’s expert, Hahn, discussing the duties and standard of care
of an abstracter.
We have explained that a college degree requirement can
indicate preparation and training for a profession, but is
not required for an occupation to be a profession. Wehrer
v. Dynamic Life Therapy & Wellness,
302 Neb. 1025,
926
N.W.2d 107 (2019); Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors,
294 Neb. 407,
882 N.W.2d 910 (2016), modified on denial of
rehearing
295 Neb. 40,
886 N.W.2d 277. Abstracters have been
held as an example of a profession that does not necessarily
require a college degree. Wehrer v. Dynamic Life Therapy &
Wellness, supra.
Having applied the factors in Wehrer, we now reaffirm
Cooper v.
Paap, supra, which held that abstracters of title performing title searches perform professional services within the
meaning of § 25-222.
Mai’s Complaint Was Untimely.
[8,9] Having concluded that the limitations periods in
§ 25-222 are controlling, we now apply that statute to this case.
- 201 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
MAI V. GERMAN
Cite as 313 Neb. 187
Under § 25-222, actions should be commenced within 2 years;
however, the Act provides, inter alia, that if not discovered
earlier, the action should be commenced within 1 year from
the date of discovery. “Discovery,” in the context of statutes of
limitations, refers to the fact that one knows of the existence
of an injury and not that one has a legal right to seek redress.
Bonness v. Armitage,
305 Neb. 747,
942 N.W.2d 238 (2020). In
a professional negligence case, “discovery of the act or omission” occurs when the party knows of facts sufficient to put a
person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry which,
if pursued, would lead to the knowledge of facts constituting
the basis of the cause of action.
Id.
Even reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
Mai, this action is time barred. The uncontroverted evidence
indicates that Mai discovered the cause of action against
German on or before November 30, 2017, the date upon which
Mai deposed German in an earlier lawsuit regarding the facts
surrounding the 1887 road petition. Since this case was not
commenced until August 30, 2019, there is no genuine issue of
material fact that this action is time barred.
CONCLUSION
We reaffirm that abstracters’ performing abstracting services
are professionals for purposes of the 2-year statute of limitations in § 25-222. Cooper v. Paap, supra. The district court
correctly determined that the present action is one sounding in
negligence, that German was performing services as a registered abstracter, that abstracters are professionals for purposes
of the 2-year limitations period and 1-year discovery limitation
applicable to professional services found in § 25-222, and that
the action is time barred. We affirm the order of the district
court that granted summary judgment in favor of German.
Affirmed.
Cassel and Freudenberg, JJ., not participating.
