S-21-934 and S-22-137 McGill Restoration, Inc. (Appellee) v. Lion Place Condo. Ass’n et al. (Appellees) and Michael Henery, an individual (Appellant).
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Peter C. Batallion
Attorneys: Theodore Boecker, Jr. (Boecker Law for Appellant Michael L. Henery) and Brian J. Koenig & Cody B. Nickel (Koley Jessen for Appellee McGill Restoration, Inc.)
Civil: Execution of Judgment Lien
Proceedings Below: Appellee obtained a judgment against Lion Place Condo. Ass’n. in the amount of $38,875.00, and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court at McGill Restoration, Inc. v. Lion Place Condo. Ass’n, 309 Neb. 202, 959 N.W.2d 251 (2021). The trial court found Appellee had an enforceable judgment lien that was capable of execution against an individual unit that was owned by Michael Henery (Appellant) in the condominium association. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket and that these cases be consolidated for purposes of appeal.
Issues: On appeal at S-21-934, Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The district court erred in failing to sustain Henery’s Motion to Quash; 2) The district court erred in failing to find that the failure to timely controvert Henery’s prior garnishment interrogatory answers discharged Henery from liability; 3) The district court erred in failing to find that McGill Restoration could not use the execution statutes to execute upon Henery’s personal property to satisfy the judgment debt of another party; 4) The district court erred in failing to find that any potential lien under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-875 did not allow McGill Restoration to use execution statutes to execute on the property of a nonjudgment debtor without first seeking other relief; 5) The district court erred in failing to sustain the Motion to Quash because it was improper to hold one unit accountable for an entire judgment indebtedness allegedly owed by the Lion Place Condominium Association; and 6) The district court erred in failing to find that the efforts to execute upon Henery’s condominium unit were untimely, even if McGill could have ever sought to execute against Henery’s unit.
On appeal at S-22-137, Appellant makes the following additional assignments of error: 1) The district court erred in failing to sustain Henery’s objection to the execution against his personal property and 2) The district court erred in failing to find that there was an improper assignment and splitting of a claim without consent of the debtor in violation of Principles of Champerty.