REO Enters. v. Village of Dorchester, 947 N.W.2d 480

REO Enterprises (REO) owns residential rental property in the Village of Dorchester.
On May 1, 2017, Dorchester enacted Ordinance No. 684 requiring an owner’s written guaranty for any tenant applying for village utility services; owners receiving service as owners were not required to obtain third‑party guaranties.
Ange Lara leased REO’s property, applied for utilities, and was denied service until REO signed the owner guaranty and a prior tenant’s unpaid bill was resolved; Dorchester continued service under an account in an REO representative’s name and retained Lara’s deposit.
REO sued seeking a declaration that Ordinance No. 684 was void and unenforceable, alleging equal protection and other statutory and constitutional violations.
The district court granted summary judgment for REO, holding the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clauses by treating tenants and owners differently without a rational basis.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding the landlord‑guaranty requirement survives rational‑basis review and remanded for consideration of REO’s remaining claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ordinance No. 684 violates equal protection by requiring landlords’ guaranties for tenant utility applications but not requiring third‑party guaranties for owner‑customers	REO: tenants and owners are similarly situated; the classification (landlord guaranty) is not rationally related to collection interests and is arbitrary	Dorchester: ordinance rationally furthers legitimate interest in collecting unpaid utility bills because landlords are more readily reachable and tied to property than transient tenants	Held: Ordinance survives rational‑basis review — plausible policy reason, facts could be rationally believed, and classification is not too attenuated from the goal; equal protection claim fails
Whether appellate court should decide REO’s remaining statutory and constitutional claims (e.g., ECOA, special legislation, URA)	REO: asks this Court to address all claims on appeal	Dorchester: trial court did not resolve those claims; no cross‑appeal by REO on interlocutory matters	Held: Court will not address issues not passed upon by the trial court; remanded for district court to consider remaining claims

Lingenfelter v. Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources Dist., 881 N.W.2d 892 (Neb. 2016) (explains rational‑basis framework used in state equal protection review)
State v. Montoya, 933 N.W.2d 558 (Neb. 2019) (burden on challenger to eliminate any reasonably conceivable rational basis)
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (legislative classifications need not be supported by empirical evidence; rational speculation suffices)
DiMassimo v. City of Clearwater, 805 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1986) (upheld landlord joinder requirement as rationally related to municipal collection interests)
DeCoste v. City of Wahoo, 583 N.W.2d 595 (Neb. 1998) (invalidated ordinance where classification lacked nexus to municipal objective)
Golden v. City of Columbus, 404 F.3d 950 (6th Cir. 2005) (invalidated municipal policy requiring tenants to wait for landlords to clear prior debts; distinguished from landlord‑guaranty rules)
O’Neal v. City of Seattle, 66 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1995) (invalidated refusal to serve new tenants because of prior charges tied to premises rather than to the tenant)