Edwards v. Mount Moriah Missionary Baptist Church ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    896	21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS
    issues of material fact remain. Having made this determina-
    tion, we need not address the Association’s remaining assign-
    ments of error.
    CONCLUSION
    In conclusion, we find that the district court erred by
    granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Scott,
    as personal representative. Therefore, we reverse the dis-
    trict court’s determination and remand the matter for further
    proceedings.
    R eversed and remanded for
    further proceedings.
    Rodney D. Edwards, Sr., doing business as The
    Home Improvement Store LLC, appellee,
    v. Mount Moriah M issionary
    Baptist Church, appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed April 8, 2014.   No. A-12-932.
    1.	 Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a summary judgment, an
    appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against
    whom the judgment was granted and gives the party the benefit of all reasonable
    inferences deducible from the evidence.
    2.	 Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depo-
    sitions, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, show there exists no
    genuine issue either as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences to be
    drawn therefrom and show the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
    of law.
    3.	 Contracts: Judgments: Appeal and Error. The meaning of a contract is a
    question of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obliga-
    tion to reach its conclusions independently of the determinations made by the
    court below.
    4.	 Contracts: Pleadings. To recover for breach of contract, a plaintiff must show
    proof of the existence of a promise, its breach, damage, and compliance with any
    conditions precedent that activate the defendant’s duty.
    5.	 Contracts. A contract written in clear and unambiguous language is not subject
    to interpretation or construction and must be enforced according to its terms.
    6.	 Parol Evidence: Contracts. The general rule is that unless a contract is ambig­
    uous, parol evidence cannot be used to vary its terms.
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    EDWARDS v. MOUNT MORIAH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH	897
    Cite as 
    21 Neb. App. 896
    7.	 Rules of the Supreme Court: Pleadings. The key inquiry of the rule for express
    or implied consent to trial of an issue not presented by the pleadings is whether
    the parties recognized that an issue not presented by the pleadings entered the
    case at trial.
    8.	 Courts: Pleadings: Pretrial Procedure. In determining whether to allow amend-
    ment of pleadings to conform to the evidence, a court initially should consider
    whether the opposing party expressly or impliedly consented to the introduction
    of the evidence. Express consent may be found when a party has stipulated to an
    issue or the issue is set forth in a pretrial order.
    9.	 Pleadings. Implied consent to trial of an issue not presented by the pleadings
    may arise in two situations. First, the claim may be introduced outside of the
    complaint—in another pleading or document—and then treated by the opposing
    party as if pleaded. Second, consent may be implied if during the trial the party
    acquiesces or fails to object to the introduction of evidence that relates only to
    that issue.
    10.	 Pleadings: Proof. Implied consent to trial of an issue not presented by the
    pleadings may not be found if the opposing party did not recognize that new
    matters were at issue during the trial. The pleader must demonstrate that the
    opposing party understood that the evidence in question was introduced to prove
    new issues.
    11.	 Expert Witnesses. An individual may qualify as an expert by reason of knowl-
    edge, skill, experience, training, or education.
    12.	 Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis
    that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it.
    Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Leigh
    Ann R etelsdorf, Judge. Affirmed.
    Michael B. Kratville for appellant.
    Matthew P. Saathoff and Cathy R. Saathoff, of Saathoff Law
    Group, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
    Irwin, Pirtle, and Bishop, Judges.
    Pirtle, Judge.
    INTRODUCTION
    Mount Moriah Missionary Baptist Church (Mount Moriah)
    appeals the rulings of the district court for Douglas County
    granting the motion for summary judgment of Rodney D.
    Edwards, Sr., doing business as The Home Improvement Store
    LLC, and overruling Mount Moriah’s motion to alter or amend
    judgment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    898	21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS
    BACKGROUND
    Mount Moriah carries property insurance through Church
    Mutual Insurance Company (Church Mutual). Church Mutual
    hired Robert A. Olson to estimate the damage done to the
    church’s roof by a windstorm on June 27, 2008. Olson is the
    owner of Accurate Insurance Adjusters, LLC, and has been
    an adjuster since 1986. Olson did the initial inspection of the
    church’s roof in the summer and fall of 2010.
    Olson prepared an initial estimated statement of loss based
    on a visual inspection of the damage to the building and roof.
    The statement estimated the cost of repair to be $29,922.45.
    On or about October 28, 2010, Edwards, the sole owner of
    The Home Improvement Store, entered into a contract with
    Mount Moriah to replace the roof of the church. The con-
    tract stated:
    For the contract price(GRAND TOTAL) reflected in
    the Accurate Insurance Adjusters . . . final estimate,* [The
    Home Improvement Store] will furnish all labor and mate-
    rial according to the following specifications, thereinafter
    referred to as the work detail. Any additional unforeseen
    and /or omitted work needed in the completion, of this job
    will be documented, approved and invoiced to CHURCH
    MUTUAL . . . and subsequently remitted to [The Home
    Improvement Store] by [Mount Moriah].
    ....
    *FOR ROOF REPLACEMENT
    The contract identified Mount Moriah as the purchaser and
    owner of the premises at issue in Omaha, Nebraska. Under the
    contract, the church was to have no out-of-pocket expenses and
    a $500 deductible was to be waived if the church displayed a
    yard-sign advertisement for The Home Improvement Store for
    60 days.
    The contract identified The Home Improvement Store as the
    contractor, and the contract required a downpayment equal to
    50 percent of the grand total upon the start of work, with the
    remaining balance to be remitted by the church upon comple-
    tion of the work. Edwards obtained the necessary permits on
    November 3, 2010, and began work.
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    EDWARDS v. MOUNT MORIAH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH	899
    Cite as 
    21 Neb. App. 896
    Edwards issued a “Revised Invoice for Roof” indicating
    Church Mutual had paid a total of $15,776.04 for all items
    completed by The Home Improvement Store. This included
    receipt of the downpayment of $9,827.27 and an additional
    payment of $5,948.76. The invoice indicates, “The remaining
    balance is subject to final approval of [Accurate Insurance
    Adjusters] and Church Mutual.”
    During the course of the roof replacement, Edwards deter-
    mined that additional work was needed beyond the amount
    estimated in the original statement of loss. His recommenda-
    tion was reviewed by Olson. Olson stated that on or about
    November 5, 2010, Edwards informed him of additional square
    footage not accounted for in the estimate, additional layers of
    old shingles requiring removal, damage to underlying decking,
    and additional items that needed to be completed to repair the
    church’s roof.
    Olson’s affidavit stated that it is common and customary that
    when repair work is started, additional work may be necessary
    to complete all of the required repairs for proper replacement
    and repair of a roof. Olson personally inspected the roof and
    found Edwards’ recommendation to be accurate.
    Olson prepared a second statement of loss on November
    29, 2010, reflecting the additional repairs. The amended total
    cost of repair was $38,210.74. The second statement also
    reflects discounts for certain charges, because these services
    were included in the original statement. The second statement
    was provided to Church Mutual, and the cost was approved
    as charged. The second statement shows that Church Mutual
    initially paid Mount Moriah $18,970.05 and that the remaining
    amount to be paid to cover the repair contract was $17,328.69.
    On November 29, Olson requested that Church Mutual make
    a final payment in the amount of $17,328.69, payable to both
    Mount Moriah and Edwards.
    Olson stated that the increase between the first statement
    of loss and the second statement of loss reflected necessary
    increases in square footage, linear footage, and additional work
    and that Edwards did not ask for Olson to “double bill” for
    any work completed. He stated that the charges were normal
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    900	21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS
    and customary charges for the type of work completed and that
    they were fair and reasonable.
    The work was completed on or about November 12, 2010.
    Edwards stated Mount Moriah informed him that the church
    did not want certain siding and trim or gutter work to be
    completed and that the church did not want certain awnings
    replaced; this work was not completed, and Edwards did not
    charge for these services. The value of this work, as set out in
    the second statement of loss, was subtracted from the total in
    Edwards’ final invoice, sent December 16. The “grand total”
    reflected in the final invoice was $34,602.74. The final invoice
    acknowledged the previous payments by Mount Moriah of
    $9,827.27 and $5,948.76 and requested payment of the remain-
    ing amount due, $18,826.71.
    After receipt of the final invoice, Mount Moriah submit-
    ted a partial payment of $9,425.86 to Edwards; however, the
    check was returned to Edwards by the church’s bank because
    the account had insufficient funds on January 20, 2011. The
    bank sent Edwards a letter stating that Mount Moriah’s account
    also had insufficient funds on December 28, 2010, the date the
    check was issued.
    Edwards attempted to collect from the church the amount
    reflected in the final invoice, and he alleges he suffered a
    financial loss as a result of the church’s nonpayment. Edwards
    sent an e-mail to the pastor at Mount Moriah, requesting pay-
    ment of the church’s remaining balance. The e-mail indicated
    Olson told Edwards that Mount Moriah had received the final
    check from Church Mutual, payable to the church and The
    Home Improvement Store. The pastor sent e-mails to Edwards
    indicating the church did not intend to pay the amount in the
    final invoice. He stated that the church “never agreed to turn
    over the complete settlement from [Church Mutual] to [The
    Home Improvement Store]” and that the church would not pay,
    just because the insurance company had paid, for work that
    was not done.
    Edwards filed his complaint on January 3, 2011, alleg-
    ing Mount Moriah refused to pay the outstanding balance of
    the contract for roof repairs. Though the final invoice total
    was $18,826.71, Edwards’ complaint requested payment of
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    EDWARDS v. MOUNT MORIAH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH	901
    Cite as 
    21 Neb. App. 896
    $18,226.71, subtracting $600 for air-conditioning repairs which
    Edwards determined were not necessary and therefore were
    not completed.
    Mount Moriah’s answer denied the amount owed to Edwards
    and alleged that Edwards “may be owed some amount but
    that the fair and reasonable value of said additional services
    is likely less than $1,000.00.” Mount Moriah denied Edwards’
    allegation that the project was completed in a good and work-
    manlike manner. Mount Moriah stated the amount charged was
    not fair and reasonable. Mount Moriah did not file a counter-
    claim or plead any affirmative defenses.
    Edwards filed a motion for summary judgment on February
    21, 2012, and the matter came before the district court for
    Douglas County on May 14.
    Mount Moriah’s answers to interrogatories allege that there
    was no breach of contract, because Church Mutual paid for
    work which Edwards did not complete, and that the church
    paid Edwards for all work actually completed. The pastor’s
    affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment
    also alleged Mount Moriah was not given credit for work not
    completed by Edwards, including replacement of gutters and
    combing of air-conditioning units. The pastor’s affidavit also
    alleged the church was entitled to a deductible of $500 pro-
    vided in the contract.
    Edwards’ affidavit alleged his final invoice did not include
    the costs associated with the gutters because he was asked not
    to do this work by the church. Edwards’ affidavit stated that
    he had planned to comb the air-conditioning units after that
    time, but that he subsequently opined the units had not suf-
    fered enough damage to require combing, and that as such,
    the units were not combed. Edwards stated that he informed
    an agent of the church that the final amount he requested was
    $600 less than the amount reflected in the final invoice, an
    amount attributable to the charged cost for combing the air-
    conditioning units.
    Edwards also alleged he did not provide the $500 deduct-
    ible because it was contingent on Mount Moriah’s displaying
    a yard-sign advertisement for The Home Improvement Store
    for 60 days. Edwards alleged that he attempted to place a sign
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    902	21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS
    in Mount Moriah’s lawn on a number of occasions but that the
    church removed the sign every time.
    At the hearing, Mount Moriah offered an affidavit of Addie
    Hardrick. Hardrick’s affidavit alleged he looked at the roof of
    Mount Moriah in 2012 and found that certain of the repairs
    claimed to have been made by Edwards were not done, or were
    not done properly. Hardrick alleged that as a result of Edwards’
    work, Hardrick made additional repairs in the amount of
    $7,984 and Mount Moriah would be expected to make addi-
    tional repairs for approximately $1,500.
    Edwards objected on foundation, as Hardrick’s affidavit did
    not correctly identify the address of Mount Moriah. Edwards
    also objected on competency, as Mount Moriah attempted to
    qualify Hardrick as an expert. The affidavit does not identify
    Hardrick’s position, employer, or experience. The court con-
    sidered the evidence and found Hardrick’s affidavit was not
    relevant on the claims framed by the complaint and answer,
    because Mount Moriah did not “affirmatively allege accord
    and satisfaction, setoff, breach of contract or negligence” and
    did not raise these issues on counterclaim. The court found that
    affidavits of two Mount Moriah church volunteers were not
    relevant to the claims framed by the complaint and answer. The
    district court also found that Mount Moriah submitted no evi-
    dence on the fair and reasonable value of the services provided
    by Edwards to contradict the evidence supplied by Edwards
    and Olson. The district court granted summary judgment on
    July 10, 2012.
    Mount Moriah filed a “Motion to Alter and/or Amend
    Judgment” on July 17, 2012. The matter came before the dis-
    trict court on September 7, and Mount Moriah’s motion was
    denied. Mount Moriah timely appeals.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Mount Moriah asserts the trial court erred in granting
    Edwards’ motion for summary judgment and in denying Mount
    Moriah’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The church
    also asserts the trial court erred in raising and sustaining sua
    sponte objections to the church’s proffered expert testimony
    of Hardrick.
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    EDWARDS v. MOUNT MORIAH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH	903
    Cite as 
    21 Neb. App. 896
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court
    views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party
    against whom the judgment was granted and gives the party
    the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evi-
    dence. Green v. Box Butte General Hosp., 
    284 Neb. 243
    , 
    818 N.W.2d 589
     (2012).
    [2] Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depo-
    sitions, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, show
    there exists no genuine issue either as to any material fact
    or as to the ultimate inferences to be drawn therefrom and
    show the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
    law. 
    Id.
    [3] The meaning of a contract is a question of law, in con-
    nection with which an appellate court has an obligation to
    reach its conclusions independently of the determinations made
    by the court below. Bedore v. Ranch Oil Co., 
    282 Neb. 553
    ,
    
    805 N.W.2d 68
     (2011).
    ANALYSIS
    [4] In order to recover for breach of contract, a plaintiff must
    show proof of the existence of a promise, its breach, damage,
    and compliance with any conditions precedent that activate
    the defendant’s duty. See Department of Banking, Receiver v.
    Wilken, 
    217 Neb. 796
    , 
    352 N.W.2d 145
     (1984).
    [5] A contract written in clear and unambiguous language
    is not subject to interpretation or construction and must be
    enforced according to its terms. Davenport Ltd. Partnership v.
    75th & Dodge I, L.P., 
    279 Neb. 615
    , 
    780 N.W.2d 416
     (2010).
    The district court found that the parties entered into a valid
    contract for roof replacement and that the contract was not
    ambiguous. The district court found the contract contained
    clear terms for determining the final contract price for the
    services and materials to be provided by Edwards. The court
    also found there was no evidence of the fair and reasonable
    value of the services to contradict the evidence supplied by
    Edwards and by Olson of Accurate Insurance Adjusters. The
    court found there were no material facts in dispute and granted
    summary judgment.
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    904	21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS
    Value of Contract.
    Mount Moriah asserts there is a genuine issue of material
    fact regarding whether Mount Moriah paid the contract in full.
    Mount Moriah asserts the parties agreed in the contract to a
    grand total of $19,654.54 and paid half of that amount as a
    downpayment. Mount Moriah asserts that the other half was
    “compromised by the parties downwards to $5948.76” and that
    the church paid that amount to Edwards. Brief for appellant at
    1. The church’s internal “accounts payable approval voucher”
    is marked “payment in full.”
    Our review of the evidence shows the contract states that the
    contract price shall be the final estimate of Accurate Insurance
    Adjusters. The initial statement of loss prepared by Olson of
    Accurate Insurance Adjusters and submitted to Church Mutual
    for approval was $29,922.45. The contract stated, “Any addi-
    tional unforeseen and /or omitted work needed in the comple-
    tion, of this job will be documented, approved and invoiced to
    CHURCH MUTUAL . . . and subsequently remitted to [The
    Home Improvement Store] by [Mount Moriah].”
    When Edwards began work on the church, he discovered
    additional square footage not accounted for in the estimate,
    additional layers of old shingles requiring removal, damage
    to underlying decking, and additional items that needed to be
    completed to repair the church’s roof. Olson inspected the roof;
    prepared a second, revised statement of loss to reflect the addi-
    tional work, for a new total of $38,210.74; and submitted it to
    Church Mutual for approval. That amount was paid to Mount
    Moriah, according to Olson.
    [6] The general rule is that unless a contract is ambiguous,
    parol evidence cannot be used to vary its terms. Stackhouse
    v. Gaver, 
    19 Neb. App. 117
    , 
    801 N.W.2d 260
     (2011). Mount
    Moriah’s assertion that the parties compromised downward is
    an attempt to introduce parol evidence, but the terms of the
    contract were clear and unambiguous.
    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mount
    Moriah and giving it the benefit of all reasonable inferences
    deducible from the evidence, we find there was no material
    issue of fact in dispute with regard to the total value of the
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    EDWARDS v. MOUNT MORIAH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH	905
    Cite as 
    21 Neb. App. 896
    agreed-upon contract. See Green v. Box Butte General Hosp.,
    
    284 Neb. 243
    , 
    818 N.W.2d 589
     (2012).
    Mount Moriah also asserts there is an issue of fact as to
    whether it should be billed for 67 square feet, as reflected in
    the second statement of loss, or whether the amount should
    be for 521⁄3 square feet, as reflected in the first statement
    of loss.
    As stated above, the parties provided for additional and
    unforeseen work in the terms of the contract. After Edwards
    discovered the difference in square footage, he submitted the
    change to Olson, who inspected the property to verify the
    accuracy of Edwards’ claim. Olson’s affidavit states that the
    change in square footage was necessary, that he was not asked
    to double bill for any work completed, and that the charges
    were customary, fair, and reasonable.
    However, there is evidence that some of the work contem-
    plated in the original contract was not completed, and the
    total contract price was to be adjusted downward to reflect
    such work.
    Work Not Completed.
    Mount Moriah asserts that there is an issue of fact as to
    whether Mount Moriah should get credit for work not com-
    pleted by Edwards and whether it is entitled to the $500
    deductible included in the contract.
    There is no dispute that Edwards did not complete certain
    work on the gutters, siding, trim, and air-conditioning units.
    The evidence shows Edwards’ invoice does not include a
    charge for gutters, siding, or trim. Though a $600 charge
    attributed to combing the air-conditioning units was included
    in the final invoice issued to Mount Moriah in December
    2010, Edwards’ affidavit states that he does not seek pay-
    ment for that work because it was not performed. As a result,
    the amount requested in this case is equal to the amount
    requested in the final invoice, minus $600, or $18,226.71. All
    other work reflected in the final invoice, with the exception
    of the air-conditioning work, was work that was completed.
    The value of this work, as set out in the second statement
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    906	21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS
    of loss, is equal to the amount requested by Edwards in
    this case.
    There is no issue of fact as to whether Mount Moriah is
    entitled to a credit for work not performed, because Edwards
    did not request payment for the work not performed.
    Mount Moriah also asserts that it is entitled to a $500 credit
    for the deductible. The contract states, “[T]he $500.00 deduct-
    ible is waived for 60 day yard sign display.” The only evidence
    in the record with regard to the placement of the yard sign
    is that Edwards’ affidavit alleges, “[The Home Improvement
    Store] attempted to place a sign in [Mount Moriah’s] yard
    on a number of different occasions, but [Mount Moriah] kept
    removing the said sign.” Based upon the evidence, there is no
    issue of fact regarding whether Mount Moriah is entitled to the
    deductible; the yard sign was not displayed for 60 days, and
    therefore, Edwards was within his right to withhold the deduc-
    tion for the yard-sign display.
    Affirmative Defenses Not
    Raised in Pleadings.
    Mount Moriah also asserts that Edwards charged for certain
    work and that the church found upon later inspection that the
    work was allegedly not completed to a satisfactory standard,
    or was not completed at all. Mount Moriah alleges that this
    work caused damage to the church and that as a result, Mount
    Moriah incurred $7,984 to pay for repairs and expects to
    incur another $1,500 to remedy such defects. Mount Moriah
    submitted this evidence through the affidavit of Hardrick. At
    no time prior to the district court hearing was Hardrick, or
    any other proffered expert, disclosed by Mount Moriah dur-
    ing discovery.
    The trial court excluded Mount Moriah’s evidence about
    Edwards’ alleged nonconforming work, because it was outside
    of the scope of the pleadings. The court found Mount Moriah
    did “not affirmatively allege accord and satisfaction, setoff,
    breach of contract or negligence. Neither were those theories
    raised in counterclaim.” The trial court also found Edwards
    properly objected that the evidence was not sufficient to estab-
    lish Hardrick’s qualifications as an expert.
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    EDWARDS v. MOUNT MORIAH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH	907
    Cite as 
    21 Neb. App. 896
    Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b) states, “Every defense, in
    law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a
    claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be
    asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required,”
    except for the enumerated defenses which may be made by
    motion. Mount Moriah’s answer failed to allege any affirma-
    tive defenses, and Mount Moriah did not file a counterclaim.
    The court does not consider evidence submitted by a party
    on issues and claims not set forth in the pleadings; therefore,
    we would not consider Hardrick’s affidavit with regard to the
    damages allegedly sustained, unless another specific provision
    or exception applied.
    Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1115(b) allows amendment of the
    pleadings if certain conditions are met. The Nebraska Supreme
    Court has assumed, without deciding, that § 6-1115(b) can
    be properly applied to summary judgment. Blinn v. Beatrice
    Community Hosp. & Health Ctr., 
    270 Neb. 809
    , 
    708 N.W.2d 235
     (2006). Accordingly, we apply § 6-1115(b) in the instant
    case. That subsection of the rule provides, in part, “When
    issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or
    implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all
    respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.” Here,
    Mount Moriah asserts the issue of the alleged defective work
    was tried by implied consent.
    [7-10] The Nebraska Supreme Court has stated that the
    key inquiry of the rule for “‘express or implied consent’” is
    whether the parties recognized that an issue not presented
    by the pleadings entered the case at trial. Blinn v. Beatrice
    Community Hosp. & Health Ctr., 
    270 Neb. at 817
    , 
    708 N.W.2d at 244
    .
    “In determining whether to allow amendments to con-
    form to the evidence, a court initially should consider
    whether the opposing party expressly or impliedly con-
    sented to the introduction of the evidence. Express con-
    sent may be found when a party has stipulated to an issue
    or the issue is set forth in a pretrial order.
    “Implied consent may arise in two situations. First, the
    claim may be introduced outside of the complaint — in
    another pleading or document — and then treated by the
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    908	21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS
    opposing party as if pleaded. Second, consent may be
    implied if during the trial the party acquiesces or fails to
    object to the introduction of evidence that relates only to
    that issue.
    “Implied consent may not be found if the opposing
    party did not recognize that new matters were at issue
    during the trial. The pleader must demonstrate that the
    opposing party understood that the evidence in question
    was introduced to prove new issues.”
    
    Id.,
     quoting 3 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal
    Practice § 15.18[1] (3d ed. 2005) (emphasis omitted).
    It is clear that the parties did not expressly consent to the
    amendment of the pleadings to include defective work or other
    affirmative defenses.
    The remaining question is whether the issues were raised
    by implied consent. The record shows Edwards objected
    on competency and foundation grounds to Mount Moriah’s
    offering Hardrick’s affidavit at the summary judgment hear-
    ing. Edwards also asked for rebuttal when Mount Moriah
    asserted that the trial court should take Hardrick’s affida-
    vit into account on the issue of defective work. Edwards’
    counsel asserted that defective work was not at issue and
    stated, “You have to raise it in an affirmative defense or file
    a counterclaim.”
    We find, upon our review of the evidence, that the pleadings
    were not amended under § 6-1115(b) here, because the issues
    of defective work or accord and satisfaction were not tried by
    express or implied consent.
    Further, Hardrick’s affidavit is not sufficient to meet the
    requirements to qualify an individual as an expert. Ordinarily,
    an expert’s opinion is admissible under 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-702
     (Reissue 2008) if the witness (1) qualifies as an
    expert, (2) has an opinion that will assist the trier of fact, (3)
    states his or her opinion, and (4) is prepared to disclose the
    basis of that opinion on cross-examination. Village of Hallam
    v. L.G. Barcus & Sons, 
    281 Neb. 516
    , 
    798 N.W.2d 109
     (2011).
    It is within the trial court’s discretion to determine whether
    there is sufficient foundation for an expert witness to give his
    opinion about an issue in question. 
    Id.
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    EDWARDS v. MOUNT MORIAH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH	909
    Cite as 
    21 Neb. App. 896
    [11] Under § 27-702, a witness can testify concerning sci-
    entific, technical, or other specialized knowledge only if the
    witness qualifies as an expert. Orchard Hill Neighborhood
    v. Orchard Hill Mercantile, 
    274 Neb. 154
    , 
    738 N.W.2d 820
    (2007). An individual may qualify as an expert by reason
    of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. See
    Northern Nat. Gas Co. v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 
    202 Neb. 300
    ,
    
    275 N.W.2d 77
     (1979).
    Upon our review, Hardrick’s affidavit fails to set forth suf-
    ficient foundation for his opinion, because he includes no ref-
    erences to his occupation, training, experience, qualifications,
    or education. He also fails to accurately describe the property
    he inspected and the methodology he employed during such
    inspection. He merely states that he was hired to “look at the
    structure” after a rainstorm and gave his opinion that the dam-
    age was attributable to Edwards’ work. Therefore, Hardrick’s
    affidavit does not support Mount Moriah’s assertion that there
    are genuine issues as to any material fact.
    Failure to Object to Proffered Expert
    Testimony on Relevance.
    Mount Moriah asserts that Edwards’ failure to object that
    Hardrick’s affidavit was not relevant waived the objection, and
    Mount Moriah asserts that it was outside of the province of
    the court to exclude the evidence on a sua sponte objection.
    Edwards did object to the affidavit on foundation and compe-
    tency and asserted at the hearing that Mount Moriah must raise
    the right to setoff as an affirmative defense or file a counter-
    claim and that this was not done.
    The trial court’s order found the affidavit was excluded as
    evidence of issues not relevant to the claims framed by the
    complaint and answer. The trial court noted that Edwards
    objected to the evidence during the hearing, and it stated that
    it would not consider evidence submitted on issues and claims
    not set forth in the pleadings. Further, the trial court stated
    Mount Moriah could not interject new theories of recovery
    that would substantially change the nature of the case as well
    as reopen concluded discovery to first present the theories at a
    motion for summary judgment.
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
    910	21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS
    [12] As discussed above, Hardrick’s affidavit was properly
    excluded from evidence because it lacked the foundation to
    qualify him as an expert and failed to demonstrate his com-
    petence, both objections raised by Edwards at the hearing.
    Having found that the affidavit was properly excluded, we
    decline to discuss whether the court made a sua sponte objec-
    tion with regard to the affidavit’s relevance. An appellate court
    is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary
    to adjudicate the case and controversy before it. Hill v. Hill, 
    20 Neb. App. 528
    , 
    827 N.W.2d 304
     (2013).
    CONCLUSION
    Upon our review of the evidence, we find that there are no
    genuine issues of material fact and that Edwards was entitled
    to judgment as a matter of law.
    Affirmed.
    William Burnett, appellant and cross-appellee,
    v. Tyson Fresh M eats, I nc., appellee
    and cross-appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed April 8, 2014.    No. A-13-278.
    1.	 Workers’ Compensation: Appeal and Error. A judgment, order, or award of
    the Workers’ Compensation Court may be modified, reversed, or set aside only
    upon the grounds that (1) the compensation court acted without or in excess of its
    powers; (2) the judgment, order, or award was procured by fraud; (3) there is not
    sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the order,
    judgment, or award; or (4) the findings of fact by the compensation court do not
    support the order or the award.
    2.	 ____: ____. On appellate review of a workers’ compensation award, the trial
    judge’s factual findings have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed
    unless clearly wrong.
    3.	 Workers’ Compensation. The statutory scheme found in 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-121
     (Reissue 2010) compensates impairments of the body as a whole in
    terms of loss of earning power or capacity, but compensates impairments of
    scheduled members on the basis of loss of physical function.
    4.	 ____. The test for determining whether a disability is to a scheduled member or
    to the body as a whole is the location of the residual impairment, not the situs of
    the injury.