Main St Properties v. City of Bellevue
309 Neb. 738
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Main St Properties LLC (MSP) owned property in Bellevue with a structure the City deemed an unsafe public nuisance and ordered demolished.
- MSP did not comply; City hired a contractor to demolish and billed MSP $25,320, notifying MSP that unpaid costs would become a lien.
- The City council, sitting as the Bellevue Board of Equalization, held a July 21, 2020 hearing and passed a resolution placing the demolition costs as a lien and instructing the county treasurer to collect them.
- MSP filed a district-court action titled "Petition to Appeal Assessment of Bellevue Board of Equalization" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 19-2422, alleging the resolution was a special assessment.
- The City moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the Board acted in a judicial capacity and MSP’s remedy was a petition in error under § 25-1901 et seq.; the district court dismissed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding the July 21 resolution levied a special assessment under § 18-1722 and § 19-2422 authorized MSP’s appeal, so the district court had jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 21 resolution constituted a "special assessment" | Resolution was levied under § 18-1722(1) to assess demolition costs as a lien on the property | The resolution did not fit the traditional "special assessment" definition used in case law | Court: Yes — the resolution levied a special assessment under § 18-1722(1) |
| Whether § 19-2422 authorized district-court review (subject-matter jurisdiction) | § 19-2422 permits appeal of "any special assessment," including those under § 18-1722 | § 19-2422 does not necessarily cover assessments under § 18-1722; remedy was petition in error under § 25-1901 | Court: § 19-2422 applies broadly to "any special assessment," so district court had jurisdiction |
| Whether MSP’s failure to file a petition in error deprived the court of jurisdiction | MSP alternatively complied with statutory appeal requirements under § 19-2422 et seq. | Board’s exercise of judicial functions required petition in error; MSP didn’t file one | Court: Did not decide petition-in-error route; where statute explicitly authorizes appeal, that path controls (MSP had proper statutory appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Champion v. Hall County, 958 N.W.2d 396 (2021) (jurisdictional questions of law are reviewed independently)
- Bennett v. Board of Equal. of City of Lincoln, 245 Neb. 838 (1994) (definition and nature of special assessments discussed)
- Abboud v. Lakeview, Inc., 237 Neb. 326 (1991) (when an explicit statutory appeal exists, it is the preferred appellate route)