Boone River, LLC v. Miles, 994 N.W.2d 35

Background

In 2015 Boone River, LLC purchased a tax certificate for property subject to a life estate in Robert Moninger; a treasurer’s tax deed issued to Boone River in 2018 and the property was transferred to 11T NE, LLC (11T).
11T sued Miles, Bettin, and Moninger in a quiet title action; Miles, Bettin, and Moninger counterclaimed and deposited a $20,000 bond to cover back taxes and related costs.
The district court in the first suit granted summary judgment to Miles, Bettin, and Moninger, holding Boone River failed to comply with tax-sale statutes, voiding the tax deed and returning title to the siblings (subject to Moninger’s life estate).
Boone River and 11T did not seek reimbursement for taxes in the quiet title suit, nor did they collect the funds deposited with the clerk.
Boone River and 11T later sued Miles, Bettin, and Moninger for unjust enrichment to recover taxes and some maintenance costs; after a bench trial the district court awarded reimbursement for taxes.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court held the unjust enrichment claims were barred by claim preclusion as to Miles and Bettin (reversing the judgment against them) but affirmed the judgment against Moninger (who did not appeal and did not plead preclusion below).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing of Boone River	Boone River paid the tax certificate and taxes and thus has a personal stake to sue for restitution	Miles/Bettin contended record did not show Boone River itself paid taxes and so lacked standing	Held: Boone River had standing; treasurer’s office testimony and business record showed Boone River paid the certificate and taxes
Standing of 11T (including assigned claims)	11T contended it had standing because (a) Homebuyers paid taxes on 11T’s behalf and later assigned its claims to 11T; assignee may sue in its own name	Miles/Bettin argued 11T lacked standing because Homebuyers—not 11T—made the tax payments and the assignment occurred after litigation began	Held: 11T had standing under restitution principles and valid assignment statute; an assignee may maintain assigned claims even if assigned during litigation
Claim preclusion for Boone River/11T’s own unjust enrichment claims	Boone River/11T argued their unjust enrichment claims were permissive and need not have been raised in the quiet title action	Miles/Bettin argued the claims arise from the same operative facts as the quiet title suit and thus were or could have been litigated previously	Held: Claim preclusion applies; the unjust enrichment claims rest on the same operative facts and could have been awarded as relief in the prior action, so Boone River and 11T are precluded
Claim preclusion as to Homebuyers’ assigned claim (now held by 11T)	11T argued the assigned claim belongs to it and was not litigated by Homebuyers in the prior suit	Miles/Bettin argued assignment cannot avoid preclusion because Homebuyers’ claim would have been barred or in privity with 11T	Held: Homebuyers and 11T were in privity (Homebuyers sole owner and controller of 11T); thus the assigned claim is also precluded

Key Cases Cited

Western Ethanol Co. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 305 Neb. 1 (2020) (standard of review for standing)
Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44 (2016) (review standard for claim/issue preclusion as question of law)
Zook v. Zook, 312 Neb. 128 (2022) (elements required to recover for unjust enrichment)
Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577 (2014) (elements for claim preclusion)
Schaeffer v. Frakes, 313 Neb. 337 (2023) (same-cause-of-action / same-evidence framework for preclusion)
Graham v. Waggener, 219 Neb. 907 (1985) (preclusion where relief sought in first suit could have encompassed later claim)
Vantage Enterprises, Inc. v. Caldwell, 196 Neb. 671 (1976) (quantum meruit claim precluded where same evidence supported earlier contract claim)
Adair Holdings v. Johnson, 304 Neb. 720 (2020) (equity principle: one who seeks equity must do equity—tender of taxes as condition to quiet title)
Ballard v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 279 Neb. 638 (2010) (claim preclusion is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded)