Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes
293 Neb. 115
| Neb. | 2016Background
- In Nov. 2001 George and Jody Poullos bought a completed house on lot 368 in an Omaha subdivision and believed the property line ran to the edge of an existing sod line.
- From 2001 onward the Poulloses mowed, watered, fertilized the sod (including a strip extending over the actual plat line), maintained an underground sprinkler system, and cleared the sidewalk of snow.
- Adjacent lot 367 remained vacant until 2013, when Pine Crest Homes began construction; a survey then showed a ~667 sq ft wedge of the maintained sod and sprinkler lay within lot 367.
- The Poulloses sued in April 2013 for injunctive relief and to quiet title by adverse possession; the district court found all elements satisfied and quieted title to the Poulloses.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo and reversed, holding the Poulloses failed to prove the possession was sufficiently notorious to put the record owner on notice within the 10-year statutory period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Poulloses' possession met the "notorious" element of adverse possession | Sod line and long-term, visible maintenance (mowing, watering, sprinkler maintenance, snow clearing) put an ordinary owner on notice | Acts were ordinary neighbor maintenance; underground sprinkler and sod are not conspicuous; no fences, structures, or other visible improvements | Possession was not sufficiently notorious; adverse possession fails |
| Whether the Poulloses' legal description was sufficient to quiet title | Offered a legal description to support quiet title (claimed description adequate) | Description was contested as insufficient | Court did not address this issue after resolving lack of notoriety |
Key Cases Cited
- Wanha v. Long, 255 Neb. 849, 587 N.W.2d 531 (Neb. 1998) (upheld adverse possession where visible improvements and long-term use put record owner on notice)
- Nye v. Fire Group Partnership, 265 Neb. 438, 657 N.W.2d 220 (Neb. 2003) (routine maintenance plus visible fencing and posts can support notoriety)
- Purdum v. Sherman, 163 Neb. 889, 81 N.W.2d 331 (Neb. 1957) (grazing of cattle constituted notorious possession)
- Inserra v. Violi, 267 Neb. 991, 679 N.W.2d 230 (Neb. 2004) (statement of adverse possession elements)
- Obermiller v. Baasch, 284 Neb. 542, 823 N.W.2d 162 (Neb. 2012) (appellate de novo review in equity actions)