Glasson v. Board of Equal. of City of Omaha
302 Neb. 869
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Omaha City Council sitting as Board of Equalization approved ordinance levying two special assessments on Glasson’s property (dump fee and litter removal); ordinance enacted January 23, 2018 and treated as a final order under § 14-547.
- Glasson protested at the December 5, 2017 hearing and initially filed appeals on January 3, 2018 before the ordinance was enacted; those filings were dismissed as premature.
- Douglas County treasurer mailed a special assessment notice to Glasson (dated February 6); Glasson attempted to file an appeal bond with the city clerk on February 13, 2018 (21 days after the ordinance) and was denied as untimely.
- Glasson then filed petitions in error in district court on February 20, 2018; the district court consolidated several filings but dismissed the consolidated appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no appeal bond was filed within 20 days as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 14-813.
- Glasson argued § 14-813’s timing is permissive or displaced by the Omaha Municipal Code, that indigent status excused a bond, and that he lacked timely notice; the district court and Supreme Court rejected these arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 14-813 requires filing an appeal bond within 20 days of the final order | Glasson: § 14-813 is permissive ("substantially" followed) or municipal code altered timing, so 20‑day requirement not mandatory | City: § 14-813 is mandatory; municipal code expressly adopts § 14-813, so 20‑day filing applies | Court held § 14-813 is mandatory; bond must be filed within 20 days and Glasson missed the deadline |
| Whether failure to file bond within 20 days deprives district court of jurisdiction | Glasson: late filing should not divest the court of jurisdiction | City: timely filing is a jurisdictional condition precedent | Held that timely filing of approved bond is jurisdictional; failure to file within 20 days deprives court of jurisdiction |
| Whether indigent status excuses bond requirement | Glasson raised inability to pay and argued bond not required for indigents | City: no record of requesting waiver or claiming indigency; statutory process for waiver exists but was not invoked | Court declined to address because Glasson did not pursue statutory indigency waiver below or prove entitlement |
| Whether Glasson lacked adequate notice of the final order, tolling the 20‑day period | Glasson: did not receive mailed notice until after the 20‑day period had begun, so deadline was effectively shortened | City: Glasson attended hearing, protested, and received notice from treasurer before deadline; no showing of deficient public notice | Court found record shows notice and that the mail-notice argument was not properly preserved; not a basis to excuse late filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. State, 218 Neb. 572 (court enforced 20-day bond filing as jurisdictional) (1984)
- Pestal v. Malone, 275 Neb. 891 (procedural questions for jurisdictional review) (2008)
- State v. Irish, 298 Neb. 61 (statutory use of "shall" is generally mandatory) (2017)
- Jackson v. Board of Equalization of City of Omaha, 10 Neb. App. 330 (addressing appeals under § 14-813) (2001)
- State v. Havorka, 218 Neb. 367 (notice and statutory procedure issues) (1984)