Hohenstein v. Vidal

── Hohenstein v. Vidal ── Court: Nebraska Court of Appeals Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) HOHENSTEIN V. VIDAL NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). KURT A. HOHENSTEIN, APPELLANT, V. CHRISTINE VIDAL, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHRISTINE FULFORD, AND CATHERINE MERTES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE HOHENSTEIN FAMILY TRUST, AND JILL HOHENSTEIN AND VICKI HOHENSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE HOHENSTEIN FAMILY TRUST, APPELLEES. Filed May 19, 2026. No. A-25-441. Appeal from the District Court for Dakota County: BRYAN C. MEISMER, Judge. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Kurt A. Hohenstein, pro se. Andrew T. Schlosser and Susan J. Spahn, of Fitzgerald, Schorr, Barmettler & Brennan, P.C., L.L.O., for appellees. MOORE, PIRTLE, and FREEMAN, Judges. MOORE, Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Kurt Hohenstein, representing himself, appeals from the orders of the district court for Dakota County, which denied his request to disqualify the judge in this case and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint and to impose sanctions on him. On appeal, Kurt assigns that the court erred in dismissing his complaint with prejudice, denying his motion to disqualify, and sanctioning him as a vexatious litigant. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm in part, and in part reverse and remand for further proceedings. -1-  II. STATEMENT OF FACTS The present case, which was initiated in July 2024, is the most recent in a series of cases relating to an ongoing family dispute concerning ownership interests in and the operation of the family farm, incorporated as Cottonwood Flats, Inc. (Cottonwood Flats). We have recounted portions of the facts of this dispute and the procedural history in three previous appeals from the underlying litigation, as well as in the appeals in two of the related cases. See Hohenstein v. Hohenstein, No. A-22-108, 2023 WL 5217713 (Neb. App. Aug. 15, 2023) (selected for posting to court website) (Hohenstein I) (appeal from final order in underlying litigation). See, also, Hohenstein v. Hohenstein, No. A-22-278, 2023 WL 5919731 (Neb. App. Sept. 12, 2023) (selected for posting to court website) (Hohenstein II) (tort case); Hohenstein v. Hohenstein, No. A-23-1057, 2024 WL 4601638 (Neb. App. Oct. 29, 2024) (selected for posting to court website) (Hohenstein III) (appeal concerning attorney fee allocation after remand in underlying litigation); Cottonwood Flats v. Hohenstein, No. A-24-526, 2025 WL 1565077 (Neb. App. June 3, 2025) (selected for posting to court website) (Hohenstein IV) (eviction case); and Hohenstein v. Hohenstein, No. A-24-798, 2025 WL 2972225 (Neb. App. Oct. 21, 2025) (selected for posting to court website) (Hohenstein V) (appeal concerning postjudgment enforcement in underlying litigation). Here, we have summarized the facts of the underlying litigation necessary to provide context for the appeal in the present case, including Kurt’s assertions regarding a 2011 agreement between Kurt and one of his siblings that was not adjudicated in the underlying litigation but is directly related to Kurt’s claims in the present case. We have also summarized filings from two other related cases that were admitted at the hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the present case. 1. UNDERLYING LITIGATION AND RELATED INFORMATION (a) Cottonwood Flats Stock William Hohenstei