Main St Properties v. City of Bellevue, 309 Neb. 738

Main St Properties LLC (MSP) owned property in Bellevue with a structure the city condemned as a public nuisance and ordered removed; MSP did not comply and the City demolished the structure.
City billed MSP $25,320 for demolition costs, notified MSP that unpaid amounts would become a lien, and held a hearing before the city council acting as the Board of Equalization.
On July 21, 2020, the Board adopted a resolution placing the demolition costs as liens on MSP’s property and directed notice to the county treasurer to collect the liens and interest.
MSP sought district-court review by filing a “Petition to Appeal Assessment” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 19-2422, alleging the resolution was a special assessment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 18-1722(1); MSP also alleged the city clerk obstructed timely perfection of the appeal/transcript process.
The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning the Board had exercised judicial functions so MSP’s remedy was a petition in error under the petition-in-error statutes; MSP appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the Board’s resolution levied a special assessment under § 18-1722 and that § 19-2422 authorized MSP’s appeal, reversed the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the July 21 resolution constituted a “special assessment” appealable under § 19-2422	The City levied costs under § 18-1722(1) as a special assessment/lien, so § 19-2422 applies	§ 19-2422’s “special assessment” refers to the traditional local-improvement assessment (per Bennett); §19-2422 doesn’t necessarily include §18-1722 assessments	Court: § 19-2422 applies to “any special assessment,” including those levied under § 18-1722(1); reversal and remand.
Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction because the Board acted in a judicial capacity and MSP should have used a petition in error under § 25-1901 et seq.	MSP alternatively argued it complied with petition-in-error requirements	Board/City: action was judicial; MSP didn’t file a petition in error so no jurisdiction	Court: did not decide petition-in-error sufficiency; because § 19-2422 provided an explicit appeal route, jurisdiction existed and dismissal was erroneous.
Whether MSP satisfied procedural prerequisites to appeal (notice, bond, transcript request)	MSP timely filed notice and $200 bond and sought transcript; city clerk obstructed and provided only an audio file	City contended MSP failed to perfect appeal by not properly filing with clerk	Court noted defendants conceded at argument that MSP complied with § 19-2423 if § 19-2422 applied; remanded for further proceedings including other defenses.

Champion v. Hall County, 958 N.W.2d 396 (Neb. 2021) (standard: appellate review of pure jurisdictional questions is de novo)
Bennett v. Board of Equal. of City of Lincoln, 245 Neb. 838, 515 N.W.2d 776 (Neb. 1994) (defines traditional special-assessment concept for local improvements)
Abboud v. Lakeview, Inc., 466 N.W.2d 442, 237 Neb. 326 (Neb. 1991) (where statute explicitly authorizes an appeal, that statutory route is the preferred appellate path)