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

Jacobsen owned land in Banner County; ~80 acres of Jacobsen’s land was fenced with neighbor Terry Brown’s 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 (State).
After the State received a warranty deed (executed Feb. 10, recorded Feb. 13, 2015), it moved to intervene in Brown’s quiet title action; the district court permitted intervention over Brown’s objection.
The district court held (on partial summary judgment) the State was a “subsequent purchaser” under Nebraska’s lis pendens statute and therefore could take only the title Jacobsen had at closing; the court nonetheless allowed the State to remain a party but restricted its ability to present evidence on adverse possession.
Jacobsen withdrew from defending; at trial Brown presented evidence unopposed and the court quieted title to Brown. The State appealed, arguing it should have been allowed to fully participate and offer evidence despite being a subsequent purchaser.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brown)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the State is a "subsequent purchaser" under the lis pendens statute	Lis pendens properly filed; any later purchaser is bound — supports treating State as subsequent purchaser	The State did not contest the filing but argued its intervention and equitable title gave rights to defend	Held: State was a subsequent purchaser (deed executed/recorded after lis pendens)
Whether a subsequent purchaser-intervenor may fully participate (offer evidence) in quiet title action	The lis pendens status limits subsequent purchasers from "standing in the shoes" of original defendant; thus State should be barred from contesting adverse possession	As intervenor, State is a party and entitled to all procedural rights, including offering evidence to defend its interest	Held: Rejected lis pendens as a blanket bar; an intervening subsequent purchaser may fully participate and present evidence
Whether court should have canceled lis pendens	Brown: lis pendens valid; no cancellation required	State: alternatively asked for cancellation (not moved below)	Held: No review of cancellation because State never moved to cancel in trial court
Whether exclusion of State's evidence was reversible error impacting final judgment	Brown: exclusion proper under lis pendens-based limitation	State: exclusion prejudiced substantial rights; prevented defense	Held: Exclusion was reversible error; judgment reversed and case remanded for new trial

Hadley v. Corey, 137 Neb. 204 (1939) (explains lis pendens doctrine and that subsequent purchasers take subject to litigation outcome)
Munger v. Beard & Bro., 79 Neb. 764 (1907) (lis pendens does not relieve plaintiff from joining known interested parties; subsequent purchasers known to plaintiff must be made parties)
Kirchner v. Gast, 169 Neb. 404 (1960) (intervenor under § 25-328 becomes a party with full rights)
Kelliher v. Soundy, 288 Neb. 898 (2014) (discusses lis pendens statute and commencement/notice issues)