Schellhorn v. Schmieding
288 Neb. 647
| Neb. | 2014Background
- Parties are neighboring landowners in Seward County: Schellhorns (east half of NW¼ of NW¼) and Schmiedings (NW¼ of NW¼); dispute concerns a 17-foot strip on the east edge of the Schmiedings’ parcel that includes a driveway and adjacent strip.
- Schellhorns and predecessors used and farmed the disputed strip since at least 1989; a historic Luethke fence (removed circa 1958–59) and a cornerpost provided a visible, longstanding observed boundary between the waterway and driveway.
- Schmieding found a 1982 survey marker in 2006 and later asserted that marker represented the record boundary, placing the record line 17 feet east of the observed Luethke line.
- Schellhorns filed to quiet title (20012 petition; trial Oct. 23, 2012). Schmiedings counterclaimed for a prescriptive easement if title was quieted against them.
- District court quieted title to the east 17 feet of the NW¼ of the NW¼ in the Schellhorns and denied the Schmiedings’ prescriptive-easement claim as the use was permissive. Court rejected laches defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schellhorn) | Defendant's Argument (Schmieding) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schellhorns proved adverse possession with sufficient description to quiet title | Adverse possession met all elements; observed Luethke fence line and cornerpost identify the strip (17 ft) | Schellhorns failed to show the recorded boundary location; cannot describe the exact land adversely possessed | Court: Affirmed quiet title to East 17 feet; evidence (fence line, cornerpost, survey marker) provided sufficiently particular description |
| Whether claim is barred by laches | Delay was reasonable; no inexcusable neglect because dispute was dormant until Schmiedings acted to farm the strip | Laches: Schellhorns and predecessors delayed and prejudiced Schmiedings (loss of witnesses) | Court: Laches does not apply; no shown prejudice and laches disfavored in Nebraska |
| Whether Schmiedings acquired a prescriptive easement for driveway use | N/A (defensive claim) | Use was adverse, continuous, and exclusive long enough to create easement | Court: Denied prescriptive easement — use was permissive until Schmiedings began preparing to farm, so not adverse for prescriptive period |
| Cross-appeal seeking prescriptive easement if quiet title failed | If adverse possession fails, Schellhorns alternatively seek a prescriptive easement to continue road use | N/A | Court: Cross-appeal moot because quiet title affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ottaco Acceptance, Inc. v. Larkin, 273 Neb. 765, 733 N.W.2d 539 (quiet title action sounds in equity)
- Koch v. Cedar Cty. Freeholder Bd., 276 Neb. 1009, 759 N.W.2d 464 (appellate review in equity is independent on law and fact)
- Wanha v. Long, 255 Neb. 849, 587 N.W.2d 531 (elements required to establish adverse possession)
- Matzke v. Hackbart, 224 Neb. 535, 399 N.W.2d 786 (need particular description of land claimed by adverse possession)
- Farmington Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Wolf, 284 Neb. 280, 817 N.W.2d 758 (laches disfavored; requires inexcusable neglect and prejudice)
- Feloney v. Baye, 283 Neb. 972, 815 N.W.2d 160 (prescriptive-right claims disfavored)
- Lake Arrowhead, Inc. v. Jolliffe, 263 Neb. 354, 639 N.W.2d 905 (permissive use is not adverse for prescriptive purposes)