Federal Nat. Mortgage Assn. v. Marcuzzo, 289 Neb. 301

Marcuzzos own property in Sarpy County secured by FNMA through a deed of trust after default and sale.
FNMA filed forcible entry and detainer in county court against the Marcuzzos seeking possession.
The Marcuzzos appeared only to challenge jurisdiction, alleging an underlying district court title action (Case No. CI 12-116).
FNMA moved to continue the forcible entry and detainer action until the district court title action was decided; the court granted the continuance.
Approximately seven months later, the district court action was dismissed as to FNMA; later evidence of a title dispute was not presented to the county court before final rulings.
At a later hearing, the Marcuzzos offered no evidence of a live title dispute; the court issued a writ of restitution in FNMA’s favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether county court had jurisdiction to continue	Marcuzzo: continuance implied title dispute; jurisdiction divested	FNMA: no title dispute evidenced; continuance permissible	County court had jurisdiction to continue
Whether county court could enter restitution despite potential title dispute	Marcuzzo: ongoing title dispute barred restitution	FNMA: title dispute resolved or not present; restitution proper	County court could issue restitution
Whether lack of a timely error statement affects review	Marcuzzo: need appellate review for plain error only	FNMA: jurisdictional analysis remains proper under plain-error standard	Plain-error review applied; no merit found

Cummins Mgmt. v. Gilroy, 266 Neb. 635 (2003) (title dispute requires dismissal, not suspension when demurrer/plea in abatement resolves it)
Pettit v. Black, 12 N.W. 841 (1882) (ancillary authorities on forcible entry and detainer timelines)
Intercall, Inc. v. Egenera, Inc., 284 Neb. 801 (2012) (recording requirements for error support in appellate review)