Bauermeister Deaver Ecol. v. Waste Mgmt. Co.
290 Neb. 899
| Neb. | 2015Background
- BDELUD sues WMN over an option to repurchase land from the 1989 sale agreement; dispute centers on ownership of landfill gases, gas collection facilities, and monofill revenues.
- The 1989 Purchase Agreement reserved to WMN title to gas generated by refuse and to ongoing environmental obligations, while Improvements installed by Purchaser remained Purchaser’s property.
- Paragraphs 6 and 14 govern ownership of gas, fixtures, and improvements; Paragraph 30 governs the seller’s option to repurchase and its recording as a deed.
- WMN sought to convey deeds with recorded encumbrances; on remand, the district court awarded WMN some rights and denied others, leading to the current appeal by BDELUD.
- The Court of Appeals initially held the option not barred by perpetuities; this Court reversed, allowing consideration of rights under the Purchase Agreement on remand, and the accounting action proceeded.
- The district court on remand largely favored WMN on gas, monofill, and related revenues; BDELUD appeals the ownership and revenue allocations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gas ownership as of 9/1/2006 | BDELUD asserts Bauermeister/Deaver ownership of gases. | WMN owns gas generated by the refuse under Paragraph 6. | Gas ownership belongs to WMN as per the Purchase Agreement. |
| Effect of law-of-the-case on remand rights | Remand rights under 2009 appeal preclude WMN from asserting these rights anew. | Law-of-the-case does not bar WMN from relitigating on remand due to differing issues. | Law-of-the-case does not preclude WMN’s reliance on rights under the 1989 Agreement on remand. |
| Fixtures vs. personal property after sale option | Gas collection structures should be fixtures transferred with land. | Paragraph 14 controls; improvements remain Purchaser’s property unless otherwise agreed. | Gas collection system remained WMN’s personal property during operation; not a fixture subject to purchase. |
| Monofill revenues and waiver/estoppel | Predecessors did not object; WMN should not monetize monofill revenues now. | Waiver and equitable estoppel apply; predecessors accepted monofill and royalty payments. | Waiver and equitable estoppel apply; monofill revenues belong to WMN/BDELUD is estopped from recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bauermeister v. Waste Mgmt. Co., 280 Neb. 1 (2010) (reversed Court of Appeals; issues concerning ownership and rights under Purchase Agreement on remand)
- State v. York, 273 Neb. 660 (2007) (res judicata doctrine described; relitigation limits explained)
- Schellhorn v. Schmieding, 288 Neb. 647 (2014) (judicial notice and record familiarity in interrelated cases)
- Robertson v. Jacobs Cattle Co., 285 Neb. 859 (2013) (law-of-the-case and mandate principles in interrelated litigation)
- Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 276 Neb. 123 (2008) (judicial notice and appellate record principles; content for law-of-the-case)