Main St Properties v. City of Bellevue
310 Neb. 669
| Neb. | 2022Background
- Main St Properties LLC (MSP) owned property in Bellevue and operated a U-Haul storage/rental business there. In 2012 the City and MSP entered a zoning development agreement that conditionally rezoned MSP’s parcel and restricted parking north of the building.
- The agreement allowed the City, after notice and an opportunity to cure, to rezone the parcel back if MSP violated the agreement.
- In June 2020 a code enforcement officer issued a zoning violation notice referencing the contract zoning agreement and ordered MSP to move vehicles south of the building; MSP appealed to the City board of adjustment, which upheld the violation; MSP’s appeal to the district court remains pending.
- While that appeal was pending, the City planning commission recommended reversing the conditional rezoning; the city council held a hearing, introduced ordinance No. 4004, and on September 1, 2020, rezoned MSP’s parcel back to its pre-agreement classification.
- MSP sued the City in district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of ordinance No. 4004. The City moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing MSP’s exclusive remedy was a petition in error under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1901. The district court granted the motion and dismissed; MSP appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSP had to challenge the city council's rezoning by petition in error because the council exercised judicial functions | MSP: The council acted legislatively in rezoning; challenge may be by collateral attack (injunction) | City: The council exercised judicial/quasi-judicial functions; petition in error is exclusive remedy; district court lacked jurisdiction otherwise | Court: Council acted in a legislative capacity here; petition in error was not required; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was error |
| Whether MSP's complaint survived a motion to dismiss | MSP: Pleaded facts showing contractual and property interests, lack of statutory requirement for judicial procedures, and irreparable harm | City: Failure to use petition in error deprives court of jurisdiction regardless of pleaded facts | Court: Accepting MSP's well-pled facts and inferences, complaint sufficiently alleges legislative action and states a plausible claim; reversal and remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Landrum v. City of Omaha Planning Bd., 297 Neb. 165 (2017) (nature of proceeding controls whether action is quasi-judicial or legislative)
- Hawkins v. City of Omaha, 261 Neb. 943 (2001) (defines when a board exercises judicial functions and petition-in-error scope)
- Johnson v. City of Kearney, 277 Neb. 481 (2009) (city council decisions reviewable by petition in error when exercising judicial functions)
- McEwen v. Nebraska State College Sys., 303 Neb. 552 (2019) (limits on petition-in-error jurisdiction and appellate review principles)
- Giger v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb. 676 (1989) (zoning and legislative nature of rezoning ordinances)
- In re William R. Zutavern Revocable Trust, 309 Neb. 542 (2021) (standards for pleading and motion to dismiss in Nebraska)