Adair Asset Mgmt. v. Terry's Legacy
293 Neb. 32
| Neb. | 2016Background
- In March 2011 Cheyenne County held a tax sale using the pre-2015 "bid down" procedure (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1807 as in effect then).
- Adair Asset Management purchased a tax sale certificate on property owned by Terry’s Legacy by bidding down to an undivided 1% interest and paid $2,223.44 for 2009 taxes.
- After the sale Adair paid subsequent taxes for 2010–2012 and sought to enforce its tax lien.
- Adair obtained a district court decree of judicial foreclosure under chapter 77, article 19, which ordered sale of the entire property (100% interest).
- Terry’s Legacy appealed, arguing the bid-down purchase limited Adair’s enforceable lien to a 1% undivided interest.
- The court also identified a ministerial error: an affidavit with confidential adoption material was not sealed as ordered and was included in the public record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a tax sale certificate acquired by "bid down" to a fractional undivided interest limits the lien subject to judicial foreclosure | Adair: foreclosure may proceed against the entire property; the method of enforcement (judicial foreclosure) should allow recovery of whole-property interest | Terry’s Legacy: the certificate describes the specific undivided fractional interest (1%), so foreclosure must be limited to that fraction | The court held the tax sale certificate and resulting lien are limited to the undivided 1% interest; decree modified accordingly |
| Whether identical statutory language across related tax statutes should be interpreted consistently | Adair: enforcement method affects outcome; certificate should not change meaning by choice of remedy | Terry’s Legacy: statutes in pari materia and repeated wording require consistent meaning—"real property" means the fractional interest sold | The court held statutes must be construed together; identical words have the same meaning, so the certificate covers only the 1% interest |
| Whether allowing full-property foreclosure would produce an absurd or unjust result | Terry’s Legacy: awarding 100% interest to a 1% bidder would be unfair to other potential bidders and absurd | Adair: seeking full recovery via judicial foreclosure is permissible | The court rejected Adair’s position as leading to an absurd and unjust result and limited foreclosure to the 1% interest |
| Whether the district court’s failure to seal a confidential affidavit requires correction on appeal | Terry’s Legacy: court reporter failed to seal as ordered; public bill of exceptions contained confidential material | Adair: (no contest noted) | The court remanded to direct sealing of the affidavit and ordered the bill of exceptions withheld from public access until sealed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grammer v. Lucking, 292 Neb. 475 (discussing statutory interpretation principles)
- Neun v. Ewing, 290 Neb. 963 (describing distinct tax-deed and judicial-foreclosure procedures)
- Merie B. on behalf of Brayden O. v. State, 290 Neb. 919 (avoid statutory constructions producing absurd results)
- Twin Towers Condo. Assn. v. Bel Fury Invest. Group, 290 Neb. 329 (characterizing real estate foreclosure as an action in equity)
- D.I. v. Gibson, 291 Neb. 554 (appellate discretion to avoid unnecessary analysis)
- Knoell v. Huff, 224 Neb. 90 (rule that repeated words in same act carry same meaning)