Brown v. Morello, 308 Neb. 968

Brown purchased and has lived at 2934 Nicholas St. (Omaha) since 1972; her son lives with her.
A narrow vacant parcel, 2936 Nicholas St. (≈20.7' x 130'), abuts Brown’s yard and the city sidewalk; it was purchased at tax foreclosure by Morello in 1995 and is too small for a dwelling.
Brown (and family) continuously mowed the parcel, cleared the adjoining sidewalk, and over 10 years ago constructed a retaining wall along the parcel’s western edge; she believed she owned and paid taxes on it until recently.
Brown filed to quiet title asserting adverse possession; Morello counterclaimed for trespass and sought removal/damages for the retaining wall.
The district court excluded portions of Morello’s affidavit (objecting to hearsay/speculation), granted Brown summary judgment quieting title to 2936 Nicholas St., and dismissed Morello’s counterclaim; Morello appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Is summary judgment proper on Brown’s adverse possession claim?	Brown: undisputed facts show continuous, exclusive, open, notorious possession for 10+ years.	Morello: factual disputes exist; summary judgment inappropriate.	Affirmed: no genuine issue; Brown entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2) Was Brown’s possession exclusive?	Brown: she alone maintained and improved the parcel; Morello made no use.	Morello: ownership retained; his agent’s lack-of-reporting raises dispute.	Held exclusive: record contains no evidence Morello used the parcel during the statutory period.
3) Was Brown’s possession open and notorious?	Brown: visible acts (mowing, sidewalk clearing, retaining wall) put an ordinarily prudent owner on notice.	Morello: routine maintenance is insufficient to show notoriety.	Held notorious: physical, visible acts were sufficient to support adverse possession.
4) Were evidentiary exclusions of Morello’s affidavit (¶¶5–6) erroneous?	Morello: court erred excluding affidavit statements (agent reports and belief re: city-built wall).	Brown: ¶5 was hearsay/irrelevant; ¶6 was speculative and lacked personal knowledge.	Held: exclusion of ¶6 was proper (speculation); ¶5 need not be resolved as, even if admissible, it would not create a material fact issue.

Siedlik v. Nissen, 303 Neb. 784 (Neb. 2019) (adverse possession elements and boundary-dispute analysis)
Nye v. Fire Group Partnership, 265 Neb. 438 (Neb. 2003) (mowing, fencing, and use can support notoriety; exclusivity when owner’s use is minimal)
Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, 293 Neb. 115 (Neb. 2016) (visible sod line and maintenance may establish notorious possession)
Wiedeman v. James E. Simon Co., Inc., 209 Neb. 189 (Neb. 1981) (routine clearing, fencing, and other acts supported adverse possession)
Kaiser v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 307 Neb. 562 (Neb. 2020) (summary judgment standard)
Thornburg v. Haecker, 243 Neb. 693 (Neb. 1993) (exclusive possession principle in adverse possession disputes)