Beckner v. Urban, 309 Neb. 677

In 1980 Francis and Lola Urban sold 146 acres to their son Richard under an installment land contract; Richard received possession immediately and was to make a downpayment plus 20 annual installments, the last due March 2000.
Richard made improvements (residence, wells, sheds, land leveling) and stopped making installments after 2001; he demanded the deed in 1999/2001 claiming he thought he had paid in full.
Lola (later acting as trustee and, after her death, her successors) sued in 2018 seeking specific performance and foreclosure; she later amended to seek ejectment.
The district court found foreclosure/time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-202 but nevertheless ejected Richard, ordered a sheriff’s sale, and allocated sale proceeds to satisfy the contract balance and then to Richard.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed: it held the specific performance/foreclosure claim was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations and that ejectment was improper because Richard’s possession became adverse after his 2001 repudiation, so the action must be dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 25-202 bars specific performance/foreclosure	Successors: statute didn’t accrue until 2018 when foreclosure was threatened	Richard: debt matured by 2000, payment in 2001 restarted limitations; suit is time-barred	Held: barred; limitations ran and 2001 payment recommenced the 10-year period so claim barred by 2011
Whether ejectment may be used to recover title/possession when foreclosure barred	Successors: ejectment is permissible to regain possession/equitable title	Richard: vendor only retained legal title as security; vendee holds equitable estate and right to possession	Held: ejectment improper—vendor contracted away right to possession and cannot eject vendee absent appropriate equitable foreclosure
Whether forfeiture/ejectment is equitable despite buyer’s improvements and increased value	Successors: equitable remedies (including sale) can compensate parties	Richard: forfeiture defeats equity given substantial improvements and greater market value	Held: forfeiture/ejectment would be inequitable here; Nebraska disfavors forfeiture
Whether and when Richard’s possession became adverse so limitations and adverse-possession run	Successors: possession remained subordinate under the contract; no adverse possession	Richard: his 2001 demand for the deed was an unequivocal repudiation starting adverse possession	Held: repudiation occurred in 2001; possession became adverse and supports dismissal under § 25-202

Mackiewicz v. J.J. & Associates, 245 Neb. 568 (Neb. 1994) (treats installment land contracts as mortgages; vendor holds title as security)
Leo Egan Land Co., Inc. v. Heelan, 210 Neb. 263 (Neb. 1981) (possession under an executory purchase contract is subordinate until payment or distinct repudiation)
Miller v. Radtke, 230 Neb. 561 (Neb. 1988) (Nebraska law disfavors forfeiture; ejectment as remedy limited by equities)
Brown v. Morello, 308 Neb. 968 (Neb. 2021) (elements required to establish adverse possession)
Lindner v. Kindig, 293 Neb. 661 (Neb. 2016) (limitations period begins when the aggrieved party has the right to sue)