MBNA America Bank v. Hansen

of causation. Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment in
favor of D B Feedyards and against the Appellants with regard
to the issue of eSI’s negligence; however, we reverse, and
remand for further proceedings on the issue of causation.
A ffiRmed in pARt , And in pARt ReveRsed And
RemAnded foR fuRtheR pRoCeedings .
mbnA A meRiCA bAnk , n.A., Appellee , v .
pAul J ohn hAnsen , AppellAnt .
745 N.W.2d 609
Filed March 4, 2008. 	No. A-06-748.
1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. When a lower court lacks the authority to exer-
cise its subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the claim, issue, or
question, an appellate court also lacks the power to determine the merits of the
claim, issue, or question presented to the lower court.
2. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question which
does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter
of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of
the lower court’s decision.
3. Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error. A party may move for rehear-
ing in an appellate court based upon any claimed mistakes or inaccuracies in
statements of fact or law in the opinion, and any questions involved which the
court is claimed to have failed to consider on the appeal.
4. Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s power
to hear and determine a case in the general class or category to which the proceed-
ings in question belong and to deal with the general subject involved in the action
before the court and the particular question which it assumes to determine.
5. Actions: Jurisdiction. lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any
time by any party or by the court sua sponte.
6. Jurisdiction. Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a judicial
tribunal by either acquiescence or consent, nor may subject matter jurisdiction be
created by waiver, estoppel, consent, or conduct of the parties.
7. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: Legislature. The jurisdiction of the district
courts conferred by the terms of the Nebraska Constitution, as thus conferred, is
beyond the power of the legislature to limit or control; while the legislature may
grant to the district courts such other jurisdiction as it may deem proper, it cannot
limit or take away from such courts their broad and general jurisdiction which the
constitution has conferred upon them.
8. Courts: Jurisdiction. A county court has concurrent original jurisdiction with the
district court in all civil actions of any type when the amount in controversy is
$51,000 or less.
536 	16 NeBRASkA APPellATe RePORTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:16 AM CST

9. Courts: Jurisdiction: Arbitration and Award: Words and Phrases. Pursuant
to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2618(a) (Cum. Supp. 2006), the term “court” shall mean
any district court of this state. The making of an agreement described in Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 25-2602.01 (Cum. Supp. 2006) providing for arbitration in this state
confers jurisdiction on the court to enforce the agreement under the Uniform
Arbitration Act and to enter judgment on an award thereunder.
10. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Appellate courts give statutory language its plain
and ordinary meaning and will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the mean-
ing of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
11. Statutes. It is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into a statute
that is not warranted by the language; neither is it within the province of a court
to read anything plain, direct, and unambiguous out of a statute.
12. Statutes: Appeal and Error. If the language of a statute is clear, the words of
such statute are the end of any judicial inquiry regarding its meaning.
13. Statutes. To the extent that a conflict exists between two statutes on the same
subject, the specific statute controls over the general statute.
14. Courts: Jurisdiction: Arbitration and Award. Jurisdiction over confirmation
of arbitration awards is conferred upon the district court by Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 25-2618 (Cum. Supp. 2006), and the county court has no such jurisdiction.
15. Constitutional Law: States. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution
dictates that state law, including constitutional law, is superseded to the extent it
conflicts with federal law.
16. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. even though an appellate court may lack
jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case, the appellate court does have authority
to vacate a lower court’s order, and, if appropriate, remand the case for further
proceedings, when such order was entered by a court lacking jurisdiction and was
thus void.
Appeal 	from 	the 	District 	Court 	for 	Douglas 	County,
gRegoRy m. sChAtz, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County
Court for Douglas County, stephen m. swARtz, Judge. Judgment
of District Court vacated, and cause remanded with directions.
Paul John Hansen, pro se.
Margaret A. McDevitt and karl von Oldenburg, of Brumbaugh
& Quandahl, P.C., l.l.O., for appellee.
iRwin , CARlson, and CAssel, Judges.
CAssel, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before us upon the motion for rehearing
filed by Paul John Hansen in response to our summary affirm-
ance. We granted the motion in part, relating only to Hansen’s
MBNA AMeRICA BANk v. HANSeN 	537
Cite as 16 Neb. App. 536

claim that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
to confirm an arbitration award. We conclude that Nebraska’s
Uniform Arbitration Act commits such jurisdiction exclusively
to the district court. Because the county court lacked jurisdic-
tion, the appellate courts also lack jurisdiction.
BACkGROUND
MBNA America Bank, N.A. (MBNA), filed a complaint in
the county court for Douglas County for judgment upon an arbi-
tration award made pursuant to a contract between MBNA and
Hansen. Hansen filed an answer admitting certain of MBNA’s
allegations, denying the remainder, and asserting three affirma-
tive defenses, none of which addressed the issue before us on
rehearing. After protracted proceedings in the county court, the
court entered a summary judgment for MBNA.
Hansen appealed to the district court, where he filed a state-
ment of errors asserting 18 errors, which generally pertained to
Hansen’s claims that he received inadequate notice of the county
court proceedings, that there was a lack of evidence regarding
the contract between MBNA and Hansen, that there was no evi-
dence of an accounting ledger of MBNA supporting the debt,
and that there were foundational issues regarding the evidence
on summary judgment. The district court affirmed the judgment
of the county court and remanded the cause to the county court
for execution of the judgment.
Hansen perfected an appeal to this court, and shortly there-
after, he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Hansen again asserted that he was not given notice
of the proceedings in county court. He also argued that he never
had a contract with MBNA and that he did not owe MBNA
money. Based on his arguments about notice in the county
court, it appeared that Hansen was attempting to challenge per-
sonal jurisdiction or due process, and we overruled the motion
for summary dismissal. Thereafter, we summarily affirmed the
district court’s decision.
Hansen timely filed a motion for rehearing. The motion
stated that Hansen “motions the court to dismiss this case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and that he “motions the
court to dismiss the action with prejudice based on the fact that
538 	16 NeBRASkA APPellATe RePORTS

state law requires the arbitration to be confirmed only in a dis-
trict court and not a county court as with this case.” In the last
paragraph of the conclusion, Hansen asserted that the county
court lacked jurisdiction because the Uniform Arbitration Act
specified that the district court shall have jurisdiction. We sus-
tained the motion for rehearing in part and granted rehearing
limited to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. We requested
and received supplemental briefing on this issue from both par-
ties. Pursuant to authority granted to this court under Neb. Ct.
R. of Prac. 11B(1) (rev. 2006), this case was ordered submitted
without oral argument.
ASSIGNMeNTS OF eRROR
In his initial appellate brief, Hansen assigned 20 errors. We
need not set forth his assigned errors because the issue upon
rehearing is limited solely to subject matter jurisdiction.
STANDARD OF RevIeW
[1] When a lower court lacks the authority to exercise its
subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the claim,
issue, or question, an appellate court also lacks the power to
determine the merits of the claim, issue, or question presented
to the lower court. VanHorn v. Nebraska State Racing Comm.,
273 Neb. 737, 732 N.W.2d 651 (2007).
[2] A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual
dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law,
which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion inde-
pendent of the lower court’s decision. Id.
[3] A party may move for rehearing in an appellate court
based upon any claimed mistakes or inaccuracies in statements
of fact or law in the opinion, and any questions involved which
the court is claimed to have failed to consider on the appeal.
McCray v. Nebraska State Patrol, 271 Neb. 1, 710 N.W.2d 300
(2006); Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 13D (rev. 2006).
ANAlySIS
[4-6] Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s power to hear
and determine a case in the general class or category to which
the proceedings in question belong and to deal with the general
subject involved in the action before the court and the particular
MBNA AMeRICA BANk v. HANSeN 	539
Cite as 16 Neb. App. 536

question which it assumes to determine. Rozsnyai v. Svacek,
272 Neb. 567, 723 N.W.2d 329 (2006). lack of subject matter
jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party or by the
court sua sponte. Betterman v. Department of Motor Vehicles,
273 Neb. 178, 728 N.W.2d 570 (2007). Parties cannot confer
subject matter jurisdiction upon a judicial tribunal by either
acquiescence or consent, nor may subject matter jurisdiction
be created by waiver, estoppel, consent, or conduct of the par-
ties. Cummins Mgmt. v. Gilroy, 266 Neb. 635, 667 N.W.2d 538
(2003). Because absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be
raised by any party at any time, we must consider the question
even though it was first raised on rehearing.
[7] We start by setting forth the general principles relating
to the respective jurisdiction of the district and county courts.
Neb. Const. art. v, § 9, states in pertinent part: “The district
courts shall have both chancery and common law jurisdiction,
and such other jurisdiction as the legislature may provide.” The
jurisdiction of the district courts conferred by the terms of the
Nebraska Constitution, as thus conferred, is beyond the power
of the legislature to limit or control; while the legislature may
grant to the district courts such other jurisdiction as it may
deem proper, it cannot limit or take away from such courts
their broad and general jurisdiction which the constitution has
conferred upon them. Susan L. v. Steven L., 273 Neb. 24, 729
N.W.2d 35 (2007). In Tynan v. Tate, 3 Neb. 388 (1874), the
Nebraska Supreme Court recognized “the common law mode
of arbitration.” Because it appears that arbitration falls within
the district court’s common law jurisdiction, the legislature
is powerless to take away the district court’s jurisdiction over
such matters.
[8] The legislature granted district courts “general, original
and appellate jurisdiction in all matters, both civil and criminal,
except where otherwise provided.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-302
(Reissue 1995). A county court has concurrent original juris-
diction with the district court in all civil actions of any type
when the amount in controversy is $51,000 or less. See, Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 24-517(5) (Cum. Supp. 2006); Neb. Ct. R. of Cty.
Cts. 62(I) (rev. 2005). Neither § 24-302 nor § 24-517 explicitly
confers jurisdiction over arbitration to either the district court or
540 	16 NeBRASkA APPellATe RePORTS

the county court. But assuming that at common law an action to
enforce arbitration awards existed when the legislature gener-
ally conferred jurisdiction on the county courts in matters where
the amount in controversy is $51,000 or less, such an action
may have been within the county court’s jurisdiction.
The role of the court in the post-1987 arbitration process is
specifically addressed and limited by the Uniform Arbitration
Act. Hartman v. City of Grand Island, 265 Neb. 433, 657
N.W.2d 641 (2003). The Uniform Arbitration Act is found at
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2601 et seq. (Reissue 1995 & Cum. Supp.
2006). Section 25-2612 generally directs “the court” to confirm
an arbitration award within 60 days of the application of a party
unless timely grounds are asserted under either § 25-2613, for
vacating an award, or under § 25-2614, for modifying or correct-
ing an award. Section 25-2615 states that “[u]pon the granting
of an order confirming, modifying, or correcting an award, a
judgment or decree shall be entered in conformity therewith and
should be enforced as any other judgment or decree.” Section
25-2617 specifies that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided, an appli-
cation to the court under the Uniform Arbitration Act shall be
by motion and shall be heard in the manner and upon the notice
provided by law or rule of court for the making and hearing of
motions.” All of these statutes refer to “the court.”
[9-13] Section 25-2618(a) states, “The term court shall mean
any district court of this state. The making of an agreement
described in section 25-2602.01 providing for arbitration in this
state confers jurisdiction on the court to enforce the agreement
under the Uniform Arbitration Act and to enter judgment on an
award thereunder.” Appellate courts give statutory language its
plain and ordinary meaning and will not resort to interpretation
to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain,
direct, and unambiguous. Knapp v. Village of Beaver City, 273
Neb. 156, 728 N.W.2d 96 (2007). It is not within the province
of a court to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted
by the language; neither is it within the province of a court to
read anything plain, direct, and unambiguous out of a statute.
State v. Warriner, 267 Neb. 424, 675 N.W.2d 112 (2004). If
the language of a statute is clear, the words of such statute are
the end of any judicial inquiry regarding its meaning. Turco
MBNA AMeRICA BANk v. HANSeN 	541
Cite as 16 Neb. App. 536

v. Schuning, 271 Neb. 770, 716 N.W.2d 415 (2006). Section
25-2618 expressly gives “any district court” jurisdiction over
arbitration matters. Applying the legal principle of expressio
unius est exclusio alterius—that the expression of one thing is
the exclusion of the others—the express grant of jurisdiction to
the district courts excludes jurisdiction to courts unmentioned
by the statute. See, generally, Chapin v. Neuhoff Broad.-Grand
Island, Inc., 268 Neb. 520, 684 N.W.2d 588 (2004). The
legislature’s specific grant of jurisdiction to the district court
to the exclusion of the county court presents a potential conflict
between §§ 25-2618 and 24-517(5) on the subject of jurisdic-
tion. To the extent that a conflict exists between two statutes on
the same subject, the specific statute controls over the general
statute. In re Application of Metropolitan Util. Dist., 270 Neb.
494, 704 N.W.2d 237 (2005). Accordingly, the legislature’s
specific grant of jurisdiction in matters of arbitration to the
district court is controlling.
[14] Our conclusion that the county court lacks jurisdiction
is bolstered by § 25-2618.01(a), which empowers a party to
submit a controversy, which controversy is subject to the terms
of an otherwise valid arbitration agreement, to the small claims
court when the amount of the controversy is within the small
claims court’s jurisdictional limit. It further provides that a
controversy submitted to the small claims court under this sec-
tion shall not be transferred to the regular docket of the county
court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2805 (Cum. Supp. 2006). See
§ 25-2618.01(b). Thus, while the legislature allowed for very
small claims to be adjudicated in the small claims court rather
than through arbitration, it is significant to the issue before us
that such claims could not be removed to the regular docket of
the county court. It therefore appears the legislature contem-
plated that the county court would have no function with respect
to enforcement of arbitration agreements or arbitration awards.
We conclude that jurisdiction over confirmation of arbitration
awards is conferred upon the district court by § 25-2618 and
that the county court has no such jurisdiction.
[15] The last question we must consider is whether any-
thing in the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (2000
& Supp. v 2005) preempts state law on the subject. The
542 	16 NeBRASkA APPellATe RePORTS

Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that state
law, including constitutional law, is superseded to the extent it
conflicts with federal law. U.S. Const. art. vI, cl. 2; Dowd v.
First Omaha Sec. Corp., 242 Neb. 347, 495 N.W.2d 36 (1993).
With regard to the confirmation of an arbitration award, 9
U.S.C. § 9 provides:
If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a
judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award
made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the
court, then at any time within one year after the award is
made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court
so specified for an order confirming the award, and there-
upon the court must grant such an order unless the award
is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections
10 and 11 of this title. If no court is specified in the agree-
ment of the parties, then such application may be made to
the United States court in and for the district within which
such award was made. Notice of the application shall be
served upon the adverse party, and thereupon the court
shall have jurisdiction of such party as though he had
appeared generally in the proceeding. If the adverse party
is a resident of the district within which the award was
made, such service shall be made upon the adverse party
or his attorney as prescribed by law for service of notice
of motion in an action in the same court. If the adverse
party shall be a nonresident, then the notice of the applica-
tion shall be served by the marshal of any district within
which the adverse party may be found in like manner as
other process of the court.
We see nothing in the federal Arbitration Act which confers
jurisdiction on Nebraska county courts or otherwise preempts
state law. The arbitration agreement in this case stated in
relevant part, “Judgment upon any arbitration award may be
entered in any court having jurisdiction.” Under Nebraska’s
statute, the only court having such jurisdiction is the district
court. We conclude that the county court did not have jurisdic-
tion to confirm the arbitration award. Accordingly, the district
court and this court also lack jurisdiction over the merits of
the appeal.
MBNA AMeRICA BANk v. HANSeN 	543
Cite as 16 Neb. App. 536

CONClUSION
[16] Because the county court lacked the authority to exer-
cise its subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration
award, the district court and this court also lack the power to
determine the merits of the issue presented to the county court.
We withdraw our previous judgment of summary affirmance.
even though an appellate court may lack jurisdiction to hear
the merits of the case, the appellate court does have authority
to vacate a lower court’s order, and, if appropriate, remand the
case for further proceedings, when such order was entered by
a court lacking jurisdiction and was thus void. Goeser v. Allen,
14 Neb. App. 656, 714 N.W.2d 449 (2006). We therefore vacate
the decision of the district court, and remand the cause with
directions that the district court is to remand the cause to the
county court with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. See Merrill v. Griswold’s, Inc.,
270 Neb. 458, 703 N.W.2d 893 (2005).
J udgment vACAted , And CAuse
RemAnded with diReCtions .
544 	16 NeBRASkA APPellATe RePORTS