Brown v. Jacobsen Land & Cattle Co.
297 Neb. 541
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Jacobsen owned land in Banner County; approximately 80 acres of that land was fenced with adjacent land owned and possessed by Brown (the disputed property).
- Brown filed a quiet title action asserting adverse possession and recorded a lis pendens before Jacobsen closed a sale of the disputed parcel to the State (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission).
- The State executed and recorded a warranty deed after the lis pendens was filed, then moved to intervene alleging equitable title and financial exposure from the purchase.
- The district court allowed the State to intervene but held the State was a "subsequent purchaser" under § 25-531 and therefore limited its ability to present evidence challenging Brown’s adverse possession claim.
- Jacobsen withdrew from the litigation and did not participate at trial; the court entered judgment quieting title in Brown. The State appealed, arguing it should have been permitted to fully defend as an intervenor.
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; a subsequent purchaser acquires no interest after notice | The State did not dispute notice compliance but argued its equitable title gave it a protectable interest | State is a subsequent purchaser: deed executed/recorded after lis pendens; § 25-531 applies |
| Whether lis pendens status prevents the State from intervening | Brown: subsequent purchaser status limits intervention to the rights of a purchaser and bars defending adverse possession | State: intervention was proper and it had rights to defend its interest and present evidence | Intervention was allowed, but lis pendens status alone does not strip an intervenor of party rights; State could intervene |
| Whether a subsequent purchaser-intervenor may present evidence to defend against adverse possession | Brown: subsequent purchaser cannot "stand in the shoes" of seller to contest adverse possession; thus State should not present evidence | State: as intervenor and party it has the same procedural rights as any party and may offer evidence to protect its interest | Court held it was error to bar the State from offering evidence; intervenor has full party rights to defend |
| Whether exclusion of the State’s evidence was reversible error | Brown: exclusion was proper under lis pendens limitations | State: exclusion unfairly prejudiced its substantial rights as an intervenor | Exclusion was reversible error because it prevented State from defending its interest; judgment reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, 293 Neb. 115 (appellate standard in equity actions)
- Kelliher v. Soundy, 288 Neb. 898 (statutory interpretation and lis pendens background)
- Hadley v. Corey, 137 Neb. 204 (subsequent purchaser entitled to question plaintiff’s right to recover)
- Munger v. Beard & Bro., 79 Neb. 764 (lis pendens does not relieve plaintiff of joining known interested parties)
- Kirchner v. Gast, 169 Neb. 404 (intervenor becomes a party with rights)
- Merrill v. Wright, 65 Neb. 794 (historic purpose and scope of lis pendens)