Midland Properties v. Wells Fargo
296 Neb. 407
Neb.2017Background
- Jerry Morgan obtained a loan secured by a deed of trust on Douglas County property, transferred title to Midland Properties, LLC, and managed it as a rental.
- Wells Fargo acquired the lender’s interest, alleged borrower default, and conducted a nonjudicial trustee’s sale; HBI purchased the property and later conveyed it to H & S Partnership, LLP.
- Morgan and Midland sued Wells Fargo, HBI, and H & S for wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, declaratory relief, and tortious interference with business relationships based on alleged presale contact with tenants and irregularities in assignments and trustee substitutions.
- Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment, producing documentary evidence of default, notice, compliance with sale procedures, and an affidavit from a tenant denying contact by Wells Fargo.
- Appellants relied primarily on Morgan’s deposition/affidavit recounting unnamed telephone conversations with Wells Fargo representatives and secondhand tenant reports; the district court excluded those portions for lack of foundation and hearsay and granted summary judgment.
- The district court also denied leave to file a second amended complaint to add Wells Fargo’s independent contractor as a defendant as untimely and futile; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to foreclose (wrongful foreclosure / quiet title) | Morgan testified Wells Fargo reps told him not to make payments and that they would not foreclose, so no default existed | Wells Fargo produced records showing missed payments, notices of default, and communications contradicting Morgan's alleged instructions | Court excluded Morgan's unidentified hearsay calls for lack of foundation; no genuine factual dispute; summary judgment for Wells Fargo |
| Evidentiary exclusion (foundation/hearsay) | Morgan's deposition and affidavit statements were admissible and created issues for trial | Morgan could not identify speakers or dates; tenant reports were hearsay without tenants' own affidavits/depositions | Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion; statements inadmissible; appellants failed to create material factual disputes |
| Tortious interference with business relationships | Tenants were allegedly contacted/harassed by Wells Fargo representatives causing lost rentals and $50,000 damages | Wells Fargo showed no contact with tenants; an independent contractor did occupancy checks and a tenant affidavit denied contact | Plaintiffs lacked admissible evidence (tenants’ first‑hand testimony); summary judgment for Wells Fargo on tort claim |
| Leave to amend to add independent contractor | Appellants sought to add the contractor nearly 9 months after amendment deadline; claimed late discovery | Wells Fargo identified the contractor earlier in deposition; amendment was untimely and the claim would be futile | District court did not abuse discretion denying leave to amend; appellate court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors, 294 Neb. 407 (appellate standard for summary judgment and inferences)
- State v. Casterline, 293 Neb. 41 (evidentiary‑foundation review is abuse‑of‑discretion)
- Golnick v. Callender, 290 Neb. 395 (procedural principles cited in summary judgment review)
- SID No. 196 of Douglas Cty. v. City of Valley, 290 Neb. 1 (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Linch v. Carlson, 156 Neb. 308 (evidence on contacts and proof)
- Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., 289 Neb. 927 (elements of tortious interference and related standards)
- Green v. Box Butte General Hosp., 284 Neb. 243 (trial court discretion on leave to amend)