Priesner v. Starry
912 N.W.2d 249
Neb.2018Background
- Kenneth and Laurie Priesner own one of four condominium units in Bayview Townhouses; Jim Starry owns the other three units and a detached garage and controlled the condominium association.
- Longstanding disputes arose over Starry’s failure to comply with the Declaration (failure to hold meetings, collect assessments, maintain common elements) and negligent roof repairs leading to damage and insurance-proceeds conversion.
- In 2014 the district court awarded the Priesners damages, ordered specific performance (insurance, meetings, budget, roof/siding replacement), and authorized appointment of a receiver if parties could not comply or agree.
- After continued conflict, the court appointed a receiver (July/August 2016) with broad directions and power to sell the property; the receiver conducted a public sale (May 22, 2017).
- The district court confirmed the sale (June 28, 2017), ordered payment from proceeds for taxes, liens, receiver fees and expenses (including repairs to one of Starry’s units), released prior liens against the property to attach only to proceeds, and declared the order interlocutory; the Priesners appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Priesners) | Defendant's Argument (Starry/Receiver) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in directing sale of the condominium as a whole (including Priesners’ unit) | Sale of entire condo (and Priesners’ unit) was improper and harmed Priesners | Appointment order already authorized sale of the entire property; sale was within receiver powers | No jurisdiction to consider: prior appointment/order directing sale was a final, unappealed order under §25-1090, so issue is foreclosed |
| Whether bidding method (units first, then whole) was unfair | Order of bidding prevented Priesners from knowing how to outbid combined offers and caused loss of unit | Receiver had discretion under court directions to conduct sale; no abuse of discretion shown | Rejected: no abuse of discretion; order of bidding was within receiver’s broad authority |
| Whether sale proceeds could pay receiver fees/expenses and repairs to Starry’s unit | Repairs and expenses for Starry’s units were unauthorized and should not be paid from sale proceeds shared proportionally | Appointment order gave broad power to manage, repair, and make units sellable; expenses properly charged to proceeds | Rejected: receiver acted within the broad powers in the appointment order; charges for necessary repairs and receiver fees were permissible |
| Whether release of Association/Priesners’ liens was improper | Court improperly released Priesners’ and Association liens against property | Release of liens was part of court’s May 2, 2017 directions to the receiver to enable sale | No jurisdiction to review: May 2, 2017 order releasing liens was a final, unappealed order under §25-1090 and is foreclosed from this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Zachary B., 299 Neb. 187, 907 N.W.2d 311 (Neb. 2018) (jurisdictional questions and final-order appeal timing principles)
- Ginger Cove Common Area Co. v. Wiekhorst, 296 Neb. 416, 893 N.W.2d 467 (Neb. 2017) (discussing finality and appealability of orders affecting substantial rights)
- Floral Lawns Memorial Gardens Assn. v. Becker, 284 Neb. 532, 822 N.W.2d 692 (Neb. 2012) (treatment of receivership orders as final and reviewable)