Brown v. Jacobsen Land & Cattle Co., 297 Neb. 541

Jacobsen owned land in Banner County; approximately 80 acres of its parcel was fenced with Brown’s adjoining property (the disputed property).
Brown filed a quiet title action alleging adverse possession and recorded a lis pendens before Jacobsen closed a sale of the parcel to the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (the State).
The State acquired record title after the lis pendens was recorded, then moved to intervene, asserting an interest as purchaser and alleging it held equitable title via a purchase agreement.
The district court permitted the State to intervene but ruled the State was a “subsequent purchaser” under the lis pendens statute and therefore could not present evidence opposing Brown’s adverse possession claim.
Jacobsen withdrew from participation; the bench trial proceeded with only Brown presenting evidence, and the court quieted title to Brown. The State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brown)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the State is a subsequent purchaser under § 25-531	Lis pendens recorded before State’s deed; thus State is a subsequent purchaser	State contested application but did not argue Brown’s compliance with filing	Court: State is a subsequent purchaser because deed recorded after lis pendens was filed
Whether a subsequent purchaser may intervene	Brown: lis pendens limits subsequent purchaser’s participation; State should have limited rights	State: intervention proper; as intervenor it may defend its interests	Court: intervention was proper — State had sufficient interest to intervene
Whether a subsequent purchaser-intervenor may offer evidence to defend against adverse possession	Brown: lis pendens status prevents State from “standing in Jacobsen’s shoes” to contest adverse possession	State: as intervenor and party, may fully participate (discovery, evidence) to protect its interest	Court: Reversed trial court — intervenor subsequently purchaser may fully participate and present evidence
Whether exclusion of State’s evidence prejudiced outcome	Brown: exclusion proper under lis pendens limitation	State: exclusion unfairly prevented defense of substantial rights	Court: Exclusion was reversible error because it unfairly prejudiced the State; remanded for new trial

Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, 293 Neb. 115 (statutory and appellate standards for equity review)
Kelliher v. Soundy, 288 Neb. 898 (lis pendens statutory interpretation and background)
Hadley v. Corey, 137 Neb. 204 (subsequent purchaser entitled to question plaintiff’s right to recover and occupies same position as original defendant)
Munger v. Beard & Bro., 79 Neb. 764 (plaintiff must join persons with known interests; lis pendens does not absolve plaintiff of making known parties litigants)
Kirchner v. Gast, 169 Neb. 404 (intervenor becomes party and has rights of a party)
Martensen v. Rejda Bros., 283 Neb. 279 (standard for reversible error on admission/exclusion of evidence)