Siedlik v. Nissen, 303 Neb. 784

Ray and Terri Siedlik lived on Lot 3 and in 2005 made landscaping, sprinkler, and fence improvements that extended across the true boundary into adjacent Lot 4 owned by Daniel and Deb Nissen.
Encroachments varied along an angled strip: about 5.5 ft at the front (sprinkler head), ~3 ft mid-yard (second sprinkler), and a wooden fence in the back (corner allegedly ~3 ft). Some improvements were later moved; by 2016 some intrusions were under 2 ft.
The parties discussed purchasing a 2-foot-wide strip; a draft legal description for a 230 sq ft (2.00 ft × varying length) tract appeared in negotiation documents but was never executed.
The Siedliks sued to quiet title, claiming adverse possession (they sought up to a 6-foot strip but evidence at trial varied and counsel moved to conform pleadings to proof).
The district court inspected the property, held a bench trial, and dismissed the complaint, finding the Siedliks’ acts (largely mowing/landscaping, minor improvements) insufficiently hostile/notorious and that the Siedliks failed to prove a definite legal description of the adversely possessed land.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Siedliks prove adverse possession of the disputed strip?	Siedliks argued continuous, exclusive, notorious use for over 10 years (mowing, sprinklers, fence, retaining work).	Nissens argued use was routine maintenance, not hostile or exclusive; some use was shared and encroachments were minor or moved.	Court: No. Maintenance/landscaping and variable, minor encroachments were not sufficiently hostile/notorious; adverse-possession elements not met.
Did Siedliks provide a sufficiently precise legal description of the land claimed?	Siedliks pointed to negotiation survey and varied testimony describing 2 ft–6 ft strips.	Nissens argued no precise legal description establishing exact boundaries was presented.	Court: No. Claim failed for lack of exact, definite legal description necessary for quiet title.
Could the wooden fence establish adverse title by enclosure in the backyard?	Siedliks contended fence marked boundary and supported adverse possession in rear.	Nissens noted fence was not treated by parties as a boundary and was later removed/replaced inside the line.	Court: Fence did not serve as boundary evidence; parties did not treat it as such and exclusivity lacking.
Can Siedliks raise boundary-acquiescence on appeal though not tried below?	Siedliks advanced acquiescence theory on appeal.	Nissens objected that issue was not ruled upon below.	Court: Not considered — appellate court will not decide issues not passed upon by trial court.

Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, 293 Neb. 115, 876 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 2016) (routine maintenance and landscaping alone do not establish hostile adverse possession)
Inserra v. Violi, 267 Neb. 991, 679 N.W.2d 230 (Neb. 2004) (claimant must prove an exact, definite description of the portion of land claimed by adverse possession)
Matzke v. Hackbart, 224 Neb. 535, 399 N.W.2d 786 (Neb. 1987) (rejection of claims based on imprecise estimations of boundary)
Steinfeldt v. Klusmire, 218 Neb. 736, 359 N.W.2d 81 (Neb. 1984) (insufficient evidence when claimant fails to establish specific boundaries)
Wanha v. Long, 255 Neb. 849, 587 N.W.2d 531 (Neb. 1998) (exclusive possession requirement; shared use defeats adverse-possession claim)
Schellhorn v. Schmieding, 288 Neb. 647, 851 N.W.2d 67 (Neb. 2014) (need for particularity in describing adversely possessed land)
McGowan v. Neimann, 144 Neb. 652, 14 N.W.2d 326 (Neb. 1944) (rule on fence as boundary giving rise to title by adverse possession when treated as boundary for statutory period)
Cullinane v. Beverly Enters.-Neb., 300 Neb. 210, 912 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2018) (appellate principle that courts will not consider issues on appeal not decided below)