Brown v. Jacobsen Land & Cattle Co.
297 Neb. 541
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jacobsen owned a parcel of Banner County land; Brown claimed ~80 acres of that land by adverse possession and filed a quiet title action and recorded a lis pendens before Jacobsen closed a sale.
- Jacobsen executed and recorded a warranty deed conveying the disputed parcel to the State after Brown recorded the lis pendens.
- The State moved to intervene, asserting it had an interest as the record owner (and equitable title via the purchase agreement); the district court allowed intervention over Brown’s objection.
- The court ruled the lis pendens made the State a “subsequent purchaser,” and limited the State’s role: it could intervene but not present evidence or otherwise defend against 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, arguing (among other things) that the court erred by precluding it from presenting evidence despite its status as intervenor and subsequent purchaser.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the lis pendens make the State a "subsequent purchaser"? | Lis pendens was properly recorded and binds subsequent purchasers; State is bound. | State acknowledged recording timeline but challenged consequences; alternatively sought cancellation (not moved below). | Yes; because the deed was executed/recorded after lis pendens, the State was a subsequent purchaser under §25-531. |
| Could the State intervene? | Brown contended intervention should be limited because lis pendens deprives State of legal interest. | State argued it had a direct interest (record/equitable title) and could intervene to protect that interest. | Intervention was allowed; the court correctly found State had sufficient interest to intervene. |
| Did lis pendens bar an intervening subsequent purchaser from fully participating (presenting evidence) in the quiet title action? | Brown argued yes: a subsequent purchaser takes only what seller had and cannot "stand in the shoes" to contest adverse possession. | State argued intervention made it a party entitled to all party rights (discovery, present evidence, examine witnesses) despite being a subsequent purchaser. | Reversed: the Supreme Court held lis pendens does not restrict an intervenor’s procedural rights; the State should have been allowed to fully participate and offer evidence. |
| Did the exclusion of State's evidence unfairly prejudice the outcome (requiring new trial)? | Brown argued exclusion was proper under lis pendens limitation; trial record had no opposing evidence so Brown prevails. | State argued exclusion denied fundamental procedural rights and prejudiced its interest, particularly with owner (Jacobsen) absent. | Held prejudicial error: exclusion of State’s evidence denied substantial rights and requires reversal and remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hadley v. Corey, 137 Neb. 204 (explain: describes lis pendens effect — subsequent purchaser takes subject to suit).
- Munger v. Beard & Bro., 79 Neb. 764 (explain: lis pendens does not excuse plaintiff’s duty to make known interested parties parties to the suit; subsequent purchasers known to plaintiff must be joined).
- Kelliher v. Soundy, 288 Neb. 898 (explain: on statutory interpretation and modern lis pendens principles).
- Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, 293 Neb. 115 (explain: quiet title is equitable; appellate review is de novo on factual and legal issues).
- Kirchner v. Gast, 169 Neb. 404 (explain: intervention under §25-328 makes intervenor a party with rights in litigation).