Brown v. Jacobsen Land & Cattle Co.
297 Neb. 541
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Terry P. Brown sued Jacobsen Land & Cattle Co. in Banner County for quiet title by adverse possession of an approximately 80-acre parcel that had been fenced with Brown’s land.
- Brown filed and recorded a lis pendens before Jacobsen closed a sale of the parcel to the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (the State); the State’s warranty deed recorded after the lis pendens.
- The State moved to intervene, alleging record title (via the pending purchase) and a direct interest; the court allowed intervention over Brown’s objection.
- The district court held the State was a “subsequent purchaser” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-531, limited its role, and precluded the State from presenting evidence contesting Brown’s adverse possession claim at trial.
- Jacobsen withdrew from participation; trial proceeded with only Brown presenting evidence and 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 the lis pendens statute | Lis pendens was properly recorded and any later conveyance to the State makes it a subsequent purchaser bound by the lis pendens | The State conceded it recorded after lis pendens but argued its intervention rights should not be curtailed | Court: State is a subsequent purchaser under § 25-531 (but cancellation argument not preserved) |
| Whether a subsequent purchaser-intervenor may fully participate and offer evidence in the quiet title action | Brown: Lis pendens status limits a subsequent purchaser’s defenses; the State cannot "stand in the shoes" of Jacobsen to contest adverse possession | State: As an intervenor and party, it has full procedural rights to defend its interest, including offering evidence | Held: Intervenor status confers full party rights; lis pendens does not bar the State from offering evidence; exclusion was error |
| Whether exclusion of the State’s evidence was harmless | Brown: Trial evidence supported adverse possession; exclusion did not prejudice outcome | State: Being barred from presenting evidence unfairly prejudiced its substantial rights, especially since Jacobsen withdrew | Held: Exclusion unfairly prejudiced the State; reversible error; new trial required |
| Whether the court should have modified case progression or canceled lis pendens | Brown: No modification; lis pendens should remain; State has only subsequent purchaser rights | State: Needed time to prepare and to seek cancellation of lis pendens; sought fuller participation | Held: Court did not err in denying modification as raised, but State did not move to cancel lis pendens below, so that issue not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, 293 Neb. 115, 876 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 2016) (standard of review in equity actions)
- Kelliher v. Soundy, 288 Neb. 898, 852 N.W.2d 718 (Neb. 2014) (statutory interpretation and lis pendens background)
- Hadley v. Corey, 137 Neb. 204, 288 N.W.2d 826 (Neb. 1939) (a subsequent purchaser who becomes party may question plaintiff’s right to recover like original defendant)
- Munger v. Beard & Bro., 79 Neb. 764, 113 N.W. 214 (Neb. 1907) (lis pendens does not relieve plaintiff from making known parties to litigation; subsequent purchasers known to plaintiff should be made parties)
- Kirchner v. Gast, 169 Neb. 404, 100 N.W.2d 65 (Neb. 1960) (intervenor becomes party and has rights of a party)