954 N.W.2d 874
Neb.2021Background
- Daniel L. Dreesen, sole owner and president of Dreesen Enterprises, purchased a Lincoln residence titled solely in Dreesen Enterprises in July 2016.
- Rose (former wife) provided $50,000 toward the purchase; Daniel says it was a loan; Rose says it was her capital contribution and that they agreed to buy the property together.
- Rose did not sign the purchase or closing documents; Daniel signed for Dreesen Enterprises and personally guaranteed financing; Dreesen Enterprises paid mortgage, taxes, and insurance.
- Rose moved in in January 2017, allegedly as a tenant; the parties dispute whether they agreed Rose would pay rent or was a co-owner.
- County eviction proceedings prompted district court litigation: Dreesen Enterprises sought quiet title and possession; Rose counterclaimed for partition or a constructive trust and restitution.
- The district court found Daniel credible, held the $50,000 was a loan (not a capital contribution), quieted title in Dreesen Enterprises, denied partition and a constructive trust, found an oral $500/month tenancy, restored possession to Dreesen Enterprises, and awarded Rose $50,000 restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rose) | Defendant's Argument (Dreesen Enterprises/Daniel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quiet title — ownership | Rose: She co-owned the property based on her $50,000 contribution and joint purchase agreement | Daniel: The $50,000 was a loan; title was conveyed to Dreesen Enterprises and she never signed closing | Court: Quieted title in Dreesen Enterprises (Daniel credible; $50,000 was loan) |
| Partition | Rose: As alleged co-owner, she can compel partition | Daniel: Not an owner, so no partition right | Court: Denied partition because Rose was not an owner |
| Constructive trust | Rose: Equity should impose constructive trust because she contributed funds and would be unjustly enriched otherwise | Daniel: He disclosed title would be in the corporation; no fraud, misrepresentation, or abuse of trust; Rose did not object | Court: Denied; Rose failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence fraud/misconduct required for constructive trust |
| Restitution / possession (oral lease) | Rose: Denied being a tenant or owing rent; contested landlord/tenant claim | Daniel: There was an oral lease; Rose agreed to pay $500/month and did not pay | Court: Found oral lease valid based on conduct and testimony; restored possession to Dreesen Enterprises and treated eviction as action at law |
Key Cases Cited
- FTR Farms v. Rist Farm, 305 Neb. 708, 942 N.W.2d 204 (2020) (equity cases reviewed de novo)
- Adair Holdings v. Johnson, 304 Neb. 720, 936 N.W.2d 517 (2020) (de novo review in equity)
- Junker v. Carlson, 300 Neb. 423, 915 N.W.2d 542 (2018) (de novo review and credibility weight to trial court)
- Blankenau v. Landess, 261 Neb. 906, 626 N.W.2d 588 (2001) (restitution/landlord-tenant actions are actions at law)
- Hastings State Bank v. Misle, 282 Neb. 1, 804 N.W.2d 805 (2011) (bench-trial factual findings in law actions treated like jury verdict)
- Weesner v. Weesner, 168 Neb. 346, 95 N.W.2d 682 (1959) (plaintiff must prove superior legal or equitable title to quiet title)
- Brtek v. Cihal, 245 Neb. 756, 515 N.W.2d 628 (1994) (constructive trust requires clear and convincing proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or abuse of confidential relationship)
- Kinkenon v. Hue, 207 Neb. 698, 301 N.W.2d 77 (1981) (terms of oral lease found from parties’ statements and conduct)