Brown v. Morello, 308 Neb. 968

Brown purchased and has lived at 2934 Nicholas St. since 1972; she and family continuously maintained the adjacent 20.7' x 130' strip (mowing, snow removal) and built a retaining wall along its western edge more than 10 years ago.
The strip is a separate platted parcel (2936 Nicholas St.) acquired by Morello at a tax foreclosure sale in 1995; it is too small to build on.
Brown mistakenly believed she owned the strip and thought she paid taxes; upon learning she did not, she filed a quiet title action alleging adverse possession.
Morello counterclaimed for trespass and sought removal of the retaining wall; he submitted an affidavit claiming his agent never reported Brown’s use and that he believed the city built the wall.
The district court sustained Brown’s motion for summary judgment, quieted title to Brown, and excluded portions of Morello’s affidavit (paragraphs 5 and 6).
Morello appealed, arguing the district court erred in (1) granting summary judgment (disputes over exclusivity and notoriety) and (2) excluding affidavit paragraphs as hearsay/speculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown established adverse possession (actual, continuous, exclusive, notorious, adverse for 10 years)	Brown: she and family performed all usual incidents of ownership (mowing, snow/sidwalk clearing, retaining wall), creating exclusive, open, notorious possession.	Morello: claims no use of parcel; challenges exclusivity and notice; points to his agent’s alleged lack of reports.	Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Brown. Undisputed evidence of Brown’s continuous, exclusive, open, notorious use sufficed; Morello presented no evidence of use.
Admissibility of affidavit ¶5 (agent’s reports) — hearsay/relevance	Brown: ¶5 is hearsay and irrelevant; should be excluded.	Morello: ¶5 showed his lack of notice of adverse use via agent.	Court: Excluded ¶5; court did not need to decide hearsay but found ¶5, even if considered, would not create a material factual dispute.
Admissibility of affidavit ¶6 (belief city built wall) — speculation/relevance	Brown: ¶6 is speculative and lacks personal knowledge; irrelevant.	Morello: ¶6 shows his belief that liability/ownership issues rested with the city.	Court: Excluded ¶6 as speculative (lacked personal knowledge); sustaining the objection was not error.

Siedlik v. Nissen, 303 Neb. 784, 931 N.W.2d 439 (2019) (sets Nebraska adverse possession element framework)
Kaiser v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 307 Neb. 562, 949 N.W.2d 787 (2020) (summary judgment review principles)
Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, 293 Neb. 115, 876 N.W.2d 356 (2016) (notoriety can arise from visible maintenance and sod lines)
Nye v. Fire Group Partnership, 265 Neb. 438, 657 N.W.2d 220 (2003) (acts of maintenance and visible use may create factual issues on exclusivity and notoriety)
Wiedeman v. James E. Simon Co., Inc., 209 Neb. 189, 307 N.W.2d 105 (1981) (routine clearing, fencing, and other overt acts can support adverse possession)