Omaha Municipal Land Bank v. Ekwen, 967 N.W.2d 724

Omaha Municipal Land Bank and Douglas County sued Feb. 23, 2018 to foreclose a 2014 tax-sale certificate on Lot 22, Block 2, Redicks Park; Vitaly Ekwen was a named defendant and a P.O. Box in Omaha was listed in the praecipe.
Plaintiffs attempted certified-mail service, then moved for service by publication (July 2018); the supporting affidavit and the court’s service-by-publication order are not in the appellate record.
The district court entered default judgment and a decree of foreclosure on June 25, 2019; an order of sale followed and the sheriff published notice and sold the property Oct. 16, 2019 to the Land Bank and County.
Plaintiffs moved to confirm the sale; Ekwen objected (Dec. 2019) and moved to vacate, arguing inadequate service and lack of mailed copy of the published sale notice to his last known address.
The district court (Aug. 2020) found the service-by-publication order and decree were issued according to law and confirmed the sale.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the service-by-publication order and the foreclosure decree (appellant failed to include supporting record), but reversed confirmation of the sheriff’s sale because plaintiffs did not mail a copy of the published sale notice to Ekwen’s last known address as required by statute, and remanded for a new sale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in granting service by publication and entering the foreclosure decree	Bank/County: conducted diligent inquiry; service by publication was authorized and proper	Ekwen: plaintiffs failed to show diligent investigation or attempts at personal service; §25‑520.01 not satisfied; lack of personal jurisdiction renders decree void	Affirmed the service-by-publication order and foreclosure decree — appellant failed to supply the affidavit/order in the record to support the challenge
Whether the court erred in confirming the sheriff’s sale for failure to provide statutorily required mailing of the published sale notice	Bank/County: did not know any other address; sheriff published notice and sale complied with publication requirements	Ekwen: plaintiffs had his last known address (P.O. Box and property address) and failed to mail a copy of the published notice as required by §25‑520.01 before confirmation	Reversed confirmation and remanded for a new sale — plaintiffs did not comply with §25‑520.01 mailing/affidavit requirement to the last known address

Federal Farm Mtg. Corp. v. Popham, 137 Neb. 529 (Neb. 1940) (de novo review of order confirming judicial sale of real estate)
Francisco v. Gonzalez, 301 Neb. 1045 (Neb. 2019) (statutory mailing requirement under §25‑520.01; failure to mail copy of publication can deprive court of personal jurisdiction)
KLH Retirement Planning v. Okwumuo, 263 Neb. 760 (Neb. 2002) (§25‑1529 and §25‑520.01 apply to sales on execution; court must be satisfied sale conformed to statutory notice requirements before confirmation)
Ginger Cove Common Area Co. v. Wiekhorst, 296 Neb. 416 (Neb. 2017) (appellant bears burden to present record supporting assigned errors)
In re Estate of Loder, 308 Neb. 210 (Neb. 2021) (statutory interpretation is a question of law for de novo review)