First Nat. Bank North Platte v. Cardenas
909 N.W.2d 79
Neb.2018Background
- Jose and Christina Cardenas (and their LLC) obtained multiple loans from First National Bank North Platte (FNBNP) secured by deeds of trust on three parcels; loans were refinanced repeatedly and some were SBA loans to the LLC with guaranties.
- The Cardenases defaulted; FNBNP sent notices of default and conducted trustee’s sales in May and September 2013, purchasing the tracts for $380,000 and $100,000 respectively.
- FNBNP pursued replevin in Kentucky (obtaining summary judgment on three notes) and filed consolidated Nebraska deficiency actions to recover remaining debt after the trustee’s sales.
- After a jury trial in Lincoln County, Nebraska, the jury awarded FNBNP $171,162.66; the Cardenases appealed but did not move for a new trial.
- On appeal the Cardenases challenged (1) the sufficiency/excessiveness of damages and (2) the district court’s refusal to give three requested jury instructions: Farm Mediation Act notice, alleged denial of the right to cure, and FNBNP’s bidding below fair market value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cardenases) | Defendant's Argument (FNBNP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence/excessive damages | Verdict was excessive; FNBNP failed to credit $100,000 from second trustee sale | FNBNP presented notes, account records, and testimony showing $171,162.66 remained due; $100,000 was credited against Kentucky-judged notes | Evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict; excessive-damages claim not reviewable because no new-trial motion was filed |
| Farm Mediation Act notice (§ 2-4807) | FNBNP failed to give statutorily required mediation notice; should be jury issue | The note at issue (No. xxx332) had individual borrowers who did not derive >50% income from farming, so § 2-4807 did not apply | Trial court correctly refused the instruction; statute’s borrower definition not met by Jose/Christina for the note sued in Nebraska |
| Right to cure under Trust Deeds Act (§ 76-1012) | FNBNP accelerated and denied the right to cure; jury should decide and bar recovery if denied | Notices complied with § 76-1006; cure requires actual tender/payment under § 76-1012, not mere willingness | Requested instruction misstated law (required only willingness) and lacked evidentiary support (no tender); refusal was proper |
| Bidding below fair market value at trustee’s sale (§ 76-1013) | FNBNP purchased at below FMV, which should bar deficiency recovery | § 76-1013 requires court to find FMV and limits deficiency recovery to indebtedness minus greater of sale price or FMV; below-FMV sale reduces recoverable amount but is not an absolute bar | Court’s instructions tracked § 76-1013; requested instruction misstated law and substance was covered; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818 (appellate standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Group, 293 Neb. 890 (evidentiary inferences and standards)
- In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237 (law-review standard for jury instructions)
- First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Davey, 285 Neb. 835 (Nebraska Trust Deeds Act — trustee sale procedures)
- Gilroy v. Ryberg, 266 Neb. 617 (notice-of-default requirements under § 76-1006)
- Graff v. Burnett, 226 Neb. 710 (definition and effect of tender)
- Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595 (standards for requested jury instructions)
- Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 297 Neb. 938 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Robinson v. Houston, 298 Neb. 746 (statutory construction; in pari materia)
- Heckman v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 286 Neb. 453 (general verdict rule)