Brown v. Morello, 308 Neb. 968

Brown bought and lived at 2934 Nicholas St. since 1972; a small adjoining strip (2936 Nicholas St., ~20.7' x 130') lies between her yard and the public sidewalk.
Morello acquired title to 2936 Nicholas St. at a tax-foreclosure sale in 1995 and did not make use of the strip; he lived out of state and had a local agent for property oversight.
Brown and family continuously maintained the entire strip for decades: mowing, clearing snow from the adjoining sidewalk, and more than 10 years ago constructing a retaining wall along the street-facing edge.
Brown believed she owned and paid taxes on the strip until discovering the separate parcel and that taxes had not been paid; she then sued to quiet title under adverse possession.
Morello counterclaimed for trespass and sought removal of the retaining wall; he submitted an affidavit asserting (1) his agent never reported Brown’s use and (2) he believed the wall was city property.
The district court excluded portions of Morello’s affidavit, granted Brown’s motion for summary judgment, quieted title in Brown, and dismissed Morello’s counterclaim; Morello appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown acquired title by adverse possession (elements: actual, continuous, exclusive, notorious, adverse under claim of ownership for 10 years)	Brown: she and family continuously maintained and used the entire parcel (mowing, snow removal, retaining wall) demonstrating exclusivity and notoriety for the statutory period	Morello: disputed exclusivity and notoriety; his out-of-state ownership and agent’s lack of reported notice rebuts claim	Court: Brown met her burden; undisputed maintenance and improvements established exclusive, open, notorious possession and summary judgment for Brown affirmed
Admissibility of Morello affidavit ¶5 (agent’s reports) — hearsay/relevance	Brown: ¶5 is hearsay and irrelevant	Morello: ¶5 shows lack of notice to owner via agent	Court: even if not hearsay, ¶5 did not create a material fact issue; exclusion did not prejudice Morello
Admissibility of Morello affidavit ¶6 (belief wall was city property) — speculation/relevance	Brown: ¶6 is speculative and irrelevant	Morello: his belief supports lack of intent to interfere with parcel	Court: ¶6 was speculative (not personal knowledge) and properly excluded

Siedlik v. Nissen, 303 Neb. 784, 931 N.W.2d 439 (2019) (sets adverse possession elements and application in residential boundary disputes)
Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, 293 Neb. 115, 876 N.W.2d 356 (2016) (visible sod line and maintenance can create a fact issue on notoriety)
Nye v. Fire Group Partnership, 265 Neb. 438, 657 N.W.2d 220 (2003) (routine maintenance plus physical alterations may support adverse possession but exclusive use is contested when both parties use the strip)
Wiedeman v. James E. Simon Co., Inc., 209 Neb. 189, 307 N.W.2d 105 (1981) (clearing, fencing, and gravel removal on pasture supported quiet title by adverse possession)
Kaiser v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 307 Neb. 562, 949 N.W.2d 787 (2020) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact and moving party entitled to judgment as a matter of law)