Brown v. Jacobsen Land & Cattle Co.
297 Neb. 541
Neb.2017Background
- Jacobsen owned Banner County land; about 80 disputed acres had long been fenced with Brown’s adjacent property.
- Brown filed a quiet title action (adverse possession) and recorded a lis pendens before Jacobsen conveyed the disputed parcel to the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (the State).
- The State moved to intervene claiming record title by purchase agreement and equitable title; the court allowed intervention over Brown’s objection.
- The district court held the State was a “subsequent purchaser” under § 25-531 and limited its role: the State could not present evidence or challenge Brown’s adverse-possession claim at trial.
- Jacobsen withdrew from the case; the bench trial proceeded with Brown presenting evidence unopposed; the court quieted title to Brown. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State is a subsequent purchaser under § 25-531 (or whether lis pendens should be canceled) | Lis pendens was properly filed; any later deed to State makes it a subsequent purchaser bound by proceedings | The State argued it had equitable title at filing and that lis pendens should not bar its rights or should be canceled | Court: State was a subsequent purchaser (deed recorded after lis pendens). Cancellation not reached on appeal because State never sought it below |
| Whether an intervenor who is a subsequent purchaser can fully participate and offer evidence | State (as plaintiff here) not directly involved — Brown said subsequent purchaser has limited role and cannot defend against adverse-possession elements | The State argued intervention made it a party with full rights to defend its interest and contest adverse possession | Held: Intervention makes the State a party with full procedural rights; lis pendens does not bar an intervenor from offering evidence; excluding evidence was error |
| Whether equitable title (purchase agreement) limits the State’s interest or defense rights | Brown: State’s interest limited to whatever title Jacobsen had at closing; equitable title does not let State stand in Jacobsen’s shoes | State: Equitable title and financial stakes meant it must defend the claim now | Held: Equitable title does not negate the State’s right to participate as intervenor; lis pendens is procedural and does not strip defense rights |
| Whether Brown proved adverse possession where State was precluded from offering evidence | Brown: Presented evidence and proved elements; no opposing testimony was offered at trial | State: Precluded below from presenting evidence; contended result was prejudicial | Held: Exclusion of the State’s evidence prejudiced its substantial rights; judgment reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelliher v. Soundy, 288 Neb. 898 (Neb. 2014) (discussion of lis pendens statute and statutory interpretation)
- Hadley v. Corey, 137 Neb. 204 (Neb. 1939) (explaining pendente lite doctrine and rights of subsequent purchasers to be bound)
- Munger v. Beard & Bro., 79 Neb. 764 (Neb. 1907) (holding a plaintiff must make known interested parties parties to litigation; lis pendens does not relieve that duty)
- Kirchner v. Gast, 169 Neb. 404 (Neb. 1960) (intervenor under § 25-328 becomes a party and gains the rights of a party)