Beckner v. Urban, 309 Neb. 677

Background

In 1980 Francis and Lola Urban sold 146 acres to their son Richard via an installment land contract; Richard received possession at execution and remained in possession thereafter.
Contract required a downpayment and 20 annual installments (last due March 2000); Richard paid intermittently and stopped paying after 2001 but made a payment and demanded the deed in 2001.
The sellers (through Lola and later Francis’s trust) did not sue until 2018, seeking specific performance/foreclosure and later amended to seek ejectment.
The district court held foreclosure/specific performance barred by the 10-year limitations statute but nonetheless found sellers had superior title and ordered ejectment and a sheriff’s sale to compensate Richard for improvements.
Nebraska Supreme Court reversed: it held the specific performance claim was time-barred, ejectment was improper because the seller retained title only as security (vendor in trust) and the buyer had an equitable interest, and Richard’s 2001 deed demand effected repudiation making his possession adverse; the court remanded with directions to dismiss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sellers’ claim for specific performance/foreclosure was time-barred under the 10-year statute.	Sellers (successors) argued limitations did not accrue until 2018 when foreclosure was threatened.	Richard argued the debt matured earlier; a 2001 payment restarted the limitations, so claim was barred by 2011.	Court: claim barred. Debt matured by 2000; a 2001 payment recommenced limitations and action was time-barred.
Whether sellers could use ejectment to regain possession despite the contract and the statute of limitations barring foreclosure.	Sellers argued ejectment was proper to obtain possession and enforce their rights.	Richard argued sellers had contracted away the right to immediate possession (vendor holds title in trust) and ejectment was inequitable; remedy should be foreclosure (which was time-barred).	Court: ejectment improper. Seller held legal title as security and contracted away possession; ejectment could not be used to bypass foreclosure and forfeiture principles.
Whether Richard acquired title by adverse possession.	Sellers argued Richard’s possession was under the contract and therefore subordinate, not adverse.	Richard argued he repudiated the vendor’s title (demanded the deed in 2001) and his possession became adverse.	Court: Richard’s 2001 demand was a distinct, unequivocal repudiation; his possession became adverse and sellers’ delay exceeded the 10-year period—adverse-possession/limitations bars sellers.
Remedy and accounting (balance due and sheriff’s sale ordered by trial court).	Sellers supported the trial court’s accounting and sheriff’s sale to satisfy debt and compensate improvements.	Richard disputed amounts and argued the ejectment/sale was improper.	Court: Because ejectment was reversed and specific performance barred, appellate court declined to address the accounting; judgment reversed and case dismissed.

Key Cases Cited

Mackiewicz v. J.J. & Associates, 245 Neb. 568, 514 N.W.2d 613 (installment land contract treated as a purchase-money mortgage; seller holds legal title as security)
Miller v. Radtke, 230 Neb. 561, 432 N.W.2d 542 (Nebraska disfavors forfeiture; equitable restraints on enforcing forfeiture clauses in land contracts)
Leo Egan Land Co., Inc. v. Heelan, 210 Neb. 263, 313 N.W.2d 682 (possession under an executory purchase contract is subordinate until payment, surrender, or distinct repudiation)
Buford v. Dahlke, 158 Neb. 39, 62 N.W.2d 252 (vendees in possession under a contract are treated as owners; vendor cannot unilaterally resume possession)
Brown v. Morello, 308 Neb. 968, 957 N.W.2d 884 (elements required to establish adverse possession)
Colwell v. Mullen, 301 Neb. 408, 918 N.W.2d 858 (standard for when a statute of limitations begins to run)