Wilkinson Development v. Ford & Ford Investments
311 Neb. 476
| Neb. | 2022Background
- Wilkinson (buyer) and Ford (seller) executed a contract (Aug 30, 2019) for commercial property in Dawson County; closing was extended and Wilkinson advanced funds.
- Ford told Wilkinson the contract was void and negotiated with PSK; PSK signed a purchase agreement with Ford on Nov 22, 2019.
- Wilkinson delivered the full purchase price to the closing agent Nov 21 and filed a complaint for specific performance Nov 25 and a lis pendens Nov 26, 2019.
- Ford and PSK closed Dec 16, 2019; deed recorded Dec 19, 2019. District court granted Wilkinson specific performance on Mar 4, 2021; Ford did not appeal.
- PSK moved to vacate the decree and for joinder (Mar 26, 2021); the district court denied the motion. PSK appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Wilkinson's Argument | PSK's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PSK was a necessary/indispensable party requiring joinder under §25-323 | Lis pendens made subsequent purchasers bound; joinder not required | Court lacked jurisdiction over PSK unless joined; PSK indispensable | Joinder not required; lis pendens statute binds subsequent purchasers and controls over general joinder statute |
| Whether Wilkinson’s lis pendens relieved it of any duty to join PSK after learning of PSK’s interest | Filing lis pendens gave constructive notice and obviated further joinder duty | Lis pendens insufficient; Wilkinson had continuing duty to join once it learned of PSK | Lis pendens provided constructive notice; plaintiff’s duty to join is measured by knowledge at time of filing, not an ongoing obligation |
| Whether PSK held equitable title (equitable conversion) before lis pendens and thus was not bound | Lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers; equitable-conversion exceptions apply to protect prior claim | PSK acquired equitable title on signing (Nov 22) and so was not bound by later lis pendens | Equitable conversion inapplicable: PSK had knowledge of Wilkinson’s prior claim and did not pay full price before lis pendens, so PSK was bound |
| Whether PSK had notice of Wilkinson’s contract/payment at time of its agreement | Wilkinson: evidence shows PSK knew of Wilkinson’s existing agreement (or should have) | PSK: claimed it lacked knowledge and relied on earlier purchase contract | Court found PSK had knowledge of Wilkinson’s adverse claim; PSK could have intervened; denial of vacatur affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kibler v. Kibler, 287 Neb. 1027, 845 N.W.2d 585 (2014) (discusses lis pendens and constructive notice)
- Brown v. Jacobsen Land & Cattle Co., 297 Neb. 541, 900 N.W.2d 765 (2017) (explains purpose and effect of lis pendens)
- Hadley v. Corey, 137 Neb. 204, 288 N.W. 826 (1939) (articulates pendente lite nihil innovetur and lis pendens doctrine)
- DeBoer v. Oakbrook Home Assn., 218 Neb. 813, 359 N.W.2d 768 (1984) (describes equitable conversion rule)
- Midwest Renewable Energy v. American Engr. Testing, 296 Neb. 73, 894 N.W.2d 221 (2017) (discusses necessary and indispensable parties)
- Becher v. Becher, 299 Neb. 206, 908 N.W.2d 12 (2018) (principle that specific statute controls over general statute)