Beckner v. Urban
309 Neb. 677
| Neb. | 2021Background
- In 1980 Francis and Lola Urban sold a 146-acre tract to their son Richard by an installment land contract; Richard took possession immediately and was obligated to make a downpayment plus 20 annual installments (last due March 2000) and pay taxes.
- Richard made improvements (home, sheds, wells) and substantially increased the property’s value; parties dispute payment history but Richard stopped making installment payments after 2001 (he made a payment in 2001 and demanded the deed).
- Lola (as trustee) waited until 2018 to sue for specific performance/foreclosure, later amending to seek ejectment; Richard asserted adverse possession as a defense.
- At bench trial the district court held Lola’s foreclosure claim barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-202 but found Lola had superior title and ordered Richard ejected via a sheriff’s sale to compensate Richard for improvements and satisfy the contract balance.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed whether (1) the specific performance/foreclosure claim was time-barred and (2) ejectment could be used to dispossess a vendee under an installment contract where foreclosure was time-barred and the vendee claimed adverse possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim for specific performance/foreclosure was barred by the 10‑year statute of limitations (§ 25‑202) | Lola: limitations did not accrue until 2018 when she threatened foreclosure | Richard: installments matured earlier; limitations accrued when debt matured or last payment was made | Held: Specific performance/foreclosure barred; limitations accrued when debt matured (2000) and restarted by a 2001 payment, so claim was time‑barred by 2011 |
| Whether ejectment could be used to dispossess vendee under an executory land contract (i.e., enforce forfeiture) | Lola: amended to seek ejectment once foreclosure remedy was time‑barred | Richard: vendor contracted away right to immediate possession; ejectment improper; he claimed adverse possession | Held: Ejectment improper—vendor held legal title in trust; vendee’s equitable interest must be extinguished first; equities disfavor forfeiture given improvements and increased value |
| Whether Richard acquired title by adverse possession and when possession became adverse (accrual point) | Lola: possession remained subordinate; no adverse possession | Richard: his 2001 demand for deed and cessation of payments constituted distinct, unequivocal repudiation, making possession adverse | Held: Richard sufficiently repudiated vendor title in 2001; adverse possession ran and, combined with § 25‑202, precluded ejectment |
| Remedies/calculation of amounts and sheriff’s sale ordered by trial court | Lola: entitled to proceeds to satisfy unpaid balance | Richard: entitled to credit for improvements and rents/profits; challenged accounting | Held: Appellate court did not reach these issues after reversing ejectment; remanded with direction to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Leo Egan Land Co., Inc. v. Heelan, 210 Neb. 263, 313 N.W.2d 682 (1981) (possession under an executory contract is subordinate until payment, surrender, unequivocal repudiation, or conveyance)
- Mackiewicz v. J.J. & Associates, 245 Neb. 568, 514 N.W.2d 613 (1994) (seller under land contract retains title as security; contract creates purchaser’s equitable interest)
- Lindner v. Kindig, 293 Neb. 661, 881 N.W.2d 579 (2016) (period of limitations begins when injured party has the right to bring suit)
- Colwell v. Mullen, 301 Neb. 408, 918 N.W.2d 858 (2018) (standard for reviewing limitations rulings)
- Brown v. Morello, 308 Neb. 968, 957 N.W.2d 884 (2021) (elements required to prove title by adverse possession)
- Buford v. Dahlke, 158 Neb. 39, 62 N.W.2d 252 (1954) (disfavoring forfeiture in land‑contract contexts)