First Nat. Bank North Platte v. Cardenas
299 Neb. 497
| Neb. | 2018Background
- Jose and Christina Cardenas and their LLC obtained multiple loans from First National Bank North Platte (FNBNP), secured by several trust deeds on their Nebraska real property.
- After defaults, FNBNP sent notices of default and conducted trustee’s sales in May and September 2013, buying the parcels for $380,000 and $100,000 respectively.
- FNBNP obtained a Kentucky judgment on some notes (relating to the LLC) and brought consolidated deficiency actions in Nebraska for remaining indebtedness, seeking $171,162.66.
- At trial FNBNP introduced the promissory notes, account records, and testimony establishing amounts due; the jury returned a verdict for FNBNP in the requested amount.
- The Cardenases appealed, arguing (1) the verdict awarded excessive/unsupported damages, and (2) the trial court erred by refusing three requested jury instructions: Farm Mediation Act notice, denial of right to cure under the Nebraska Trust Deeds Act, and FNBNP’s alleged failure to bid fair market value at trustee’s sales.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / excessive damages | Cardenas: FNBNP miscalculated deficiency and failed to credit $100,000 sale proceeds, so verdict is excessive and unsupported | FNBNP: Records, notes, and testimony support the claimed deficiency; $100,000 was credited against notes resolved in Kentucky judgment | Court: Excessive-damages claim not reviewable (no new-trial motion). On sufficiency, evidence was adequate to support jury verdict |
| Farm Mediation Act notice (§ 2-4807) | Cardenas: FNBNP failed to give required mediation notice; jury should consider this affirmative defense | FNBNP: Relevant note at issue (No. xxx332) had individual borrowers (Jose & Christina) who did not meet borrower definition under the Act (not >50% income from farming) | Court: Instruction unwarranted—evidence did not show Jose/Christina were "borrowers" under the Act, so no error in refusal |
| Right to cure under Trust Deeds Act (§§ 76-1006, 76-1012) | Cardenas: FNBNP accelerated and refused their right to cure; requested instruction would bar recovery if bank denied cure opportunity | FNBNP: Notices of default complied with Act; cure requires actual tender/payment per § 76-1012, not mere willingness | Court: Requested instruction misstated law (tender required, not mere willingness/ability) and evidence showed no tender; notices complied with statute—no error |
| Fair market value / bidding at trustee’s sale (§ 76-1013) | Cardenas: FNBNP bid below fair market value, which should bar deficiency recovery | FNBNP: § 76-1013 requires the court/jury to find fair market value and limits judgment to indebtedness minus greater of sale price or fair market value | Court: Requested instruction was incorrect as a categorical bar; jury was instructed consistent with § 76-1013 and general verdict implies jury found sale price ≥ fair market value—no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Group, 293 Neb. 890 (discussing appellate sufficiency review)
- ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818 (evidentiary inferences for upholding verdicts)
- Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595 (standards for jury instructions and reversible error)
- First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Davey, 285 Neb. 835 (explaining trust deeds and nonjudicial foreclosure)
- Gilroy v. Ryberg, 266 Neb. 617 (notice-of-default requirements under Nebraska Trust Deeds Act)
- Graff v. Burnett, 226 Neb. 710 (definition of tender and related principles)
- Heckman v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 286 Neb. 453 (general verdict rule presumption)