Tierney v. Four H Land Co., 852 N.W.2d 292

In 1998, Four H Land Co. Ltd. Partnership and Western Engineering agreed with the Tierneys and Hidden Lakes lot owners to waive appeals of a CUP and to set reclamation terms after mining.
The 1998 CUP required restoration to original topography with a lake exception; the agreement required restoration to original topography except for a lake, in phased work aligned with mining phases.
The CUP and agreement were integrated, and the site plan showed a final lake of about 11 acres as part of the plan.
After mining, Four H and Western allegedly raised most of the property 5–8 feet above original topography, creating a 30-acre lake and berms, contrary to the restoration terms.
Tierneys filed suit in 2009 seeking specific performance; district court denied relief, appellate history included remands and a site-visit bench trial.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding specific performance should be ordered to restore the land to its original topography with an 11-acre lake.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether specific performance was appropriate	Tierneys argue contract is certain and performance is feasible	Four H/Western argue ambiguity and burdens outweigh benefits	Yes; specific performance should be ordered
Whether the contract terms were sufficiently certain and definite	Terms unambiguous when read with the integrated CUP	Terms were ambiguous and open to interpretation	Terms were sufficiently certain and definite
Whether a comparative burden analysis justified denial	Hardship should not excuse performance; restoration benefits Tierneys	Burden to Four H/Western was massive and outweighed benefits	Burden-benefit analysis improper; no excuse to deny performance

Marten v. Staab, 249 Neb. 299 (1996) (specific performance requires valid contract and substantial compliance)
Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 272 Neb. 219 (2006) (adequacy of legal remedies; equity matters)
Mohrlang v. Draper, 219 Neb. 630 (1985) (hardship and foreseeability in specific performance)
Mainelli v. Neuhaus, 157 Neb. 392 (1953) (equitable remedies and restoration principles)
Kucera v. Kavan, 165 Neb. 131 (1957) (strict compliance with contract duties)
Hearst-Argyle Prop. v. Entrex Comm. Servs., 279 Neb. 468 (2010) (parol integration and reading contracts in pari materia)
Garsick v. Dehner, 145 Neb. 73 (1944) (contract interpretation and equity)
Mohrlang v. Draper, 365 N.W.2d 443 (1985) (hardship and foreseeability in specific performance)