Choice Homes v. Donner, 311 Neb. 835

Choice Homes (nonlicensee contractor) entered simultaneous purchase agreements to buy property from owners for $750,000 and sell it to buyers for $1.3M, expecting profit.
Choice showed the property, negotiated terms, and obtained an oral agreement with the owners that it would be able to purchase if it found a buyer.
Choice failed to deliver a current title commitment and its own seller disclosure; buyers refused to close citing undisclosed erosion history; owners later sold directly to buyers for $825,000.
Donner (buyer) posted an online Google review criticizing Choice/Gillman and saying he wanted to ‘‘sue the widow … hoping to cash in.’'
Choice sued Donner for contract-related claims and defamation; district court granted summary judgment for Donner, holding the Nebraska Real Estate License Act barred Choice’s nondefamation claims and the online review conveyed nonactionable opinion/truth; Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Choice)	Defendant's Argument (Donner)	Held
Applicability of Nebraska Real Estate License Act to Choice’s nondefamation claims	Choice: It acted in its own interest (as purchaser/reseller) and thus did not perform prohibited acts "for another," or is excepted as owner under §81-885.04(1)	Donner: Choice performed broker-like prohibited acts with expectation of compensation while unlicensed; Act bars recovery	Held: Act applies — Choice performed prohibited acts (procured buyer, negotiated sale, solicited sale) expecting compensation; exception did not save it because most acts occurred before/after its fleeting equitable ownership
Defamation: whether Donner’s online review states provably false facts	Choice: The review implies false factual assertions (e.g., that Gillman would sue a widow to ‘‘cash in’’) and invites readers to contact Donner for verification, implying more defamatory facts	Donner: Statements are truthful or nonactionable opinion/hyperbole; no evidence of actual malice	Held: Review expresssions are opinion/hyperbolic and did not state or imply provably false facts; truthful factual statements are a defense absent proof of malice; defamation claim fails

Momsen v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital, 210 Neb. 45 (1981) (court may discredit after‑the‑fact affidavit that alters testimony)
In re Estate of Ronan, 277 Neb. 516 (2009) (nonlicensees cannot recover compensation for acts covered by the Real Estate License Act)
Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., 289 Neb. 927 (2015) (tests for distinguishing opinion from provable fact in defamation claims)
JB & Assocs. v. Nebraska Cancer Coalition, 303 Neb. 855 (2019) (elements of defamation under Nebraska law)
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (opinion/fact analysis; opinions may imply false factual assertions)
DeBoer v. Oakbrook Home Assn., 218 Neb. 813 (1984) (equitable title vests in purchaser upon contract of sale)