Wisner v. Vandelay Investments
300 Neb. 825
| Neb. | 2018Background
- Gladys P. Wisner owned 480 acres; real estate taxes became delinquent and a Lincoln County tax sale certificate was issued in 2011, later assigned to Vandelay Investments, L.L.C.
- Vandelay identified the address to which property tax statements were mailed (a retirement community), sent certified-mail notice of intent to apply for a tax deed which was returned "unclaimed," then published notice in the Sutherland Courier‑Times and applied for a tax deed; the county treasurer issued a tax deed in September 2014.
- Robin Wisner (Gladys’ son and personal representative after her death) sued to void the tax deed, asserting insufficient statutory notice and that Gladys had a "mental disorder" at the time of sale entitling her to a 5‑year redemption period; Vandelay counterclaimed to quiet title.
- The district court quieted title in Vandelay, finding statutory notice and publication adequate and that Gladys lacked a qualifying mental disorder at the time of sale; the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, holding notice was inadequate and the deed void.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals: it held Robin had standing (based on a judicial admission), Vandelay substantially complied with notice/publication requirements, and Robin failed to prove Gladys had a mental disorder at the time of the tax sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wisner) | Defendant's Argument (Vandelay) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77‑1844 | Robin tendered payment (or attempted redemption) and thus meets the statutory condition to challenge the deed | Robin did not tender payment to the county treasurer; Vandelay denies tender and contests any judicial‑admission effect | Robin had standing: Vandelay’s answer admitted the treasurer declined to accept redemption, which the Court treated as a clear judicial admission that Robin tendered redemption to the treasurer, satisfying § 77‑1844 |
| Adequacy of notice / service by publication (§§ 77‑1831 to 77‑1835) | Certified notice was returned “unclaimed”; because Vandelay knew Gladys’ whereabouts, publication was improper and service insufficient | Vandelay complied with statutory steps: sent certified mail to tax‑statement address (returned unclaimed), then published and mailed the published notice; publication is permitted when owner is not "able to be served" at the tax‑statement address | Vandelay substantially complied. "Found" in § 77‑1834 means "able to be served"; after certified mail returned unclaimed, publication was authorized and proof of publication was sufficient |
| Meaning / proof of "mental disorder" for extended 5‑year redemption (§ 77‑1827) | Gladys had progressive cognitive decline (treating physician) that prevented protecting her legal rights as of the 2011 sale, so the 5‑year redemption period applies | Vandelay’s expert (record review) showed no such disorder at the time of sale; burden on challenger to prove disorder at time of sale | Robin failed to prove Gladys had a qualifying mental disorder in March 2011; district court credibility findings (favoring Vandelay’s expert) sustained on de novo review |
| Equitable relief / fairness argument | Even if statutes were followed, equity favors permitting redemption because of Gladys’ advanced age, infirmity, and family circumstances | Statutory scheme supplies the process and Vandelay complied; Robin had opportunities to protect Gladys’ interests but did not act | Court declined to craft equitable relief where statutory prerequisites were not met and where Vandelay complied; equities did not favor relief for Robin |
Key Cases Cited
- Hauxwell v. Henning, 291 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2015) (standing requires tender/payment to county treasurer; court clarifies Hauxwell cannot be read to permit tender to deed holder to satisfy § 77‑1844)
- Ottaco Acceptance, Inc. v. Larkin, 273 Neb. 765 (Neb. 2007) (tax deed is void if certificate holder failed to substantially comply with notice requirements)
- SID No. 424 v. Tristar Mgmt., 288 Neb. 425 (Neb. 2014) (county treasurer’s tax deed is presumptive evidence procedures were followed; presumption rebuttable by competent evidence)
- J.S. v. Grand Island Pub. Schs., 297 Neb. 347 (Neb. 2017) (standing/subject‑matter jurisdiction is a legal question reviewed independently)
- Maycock v. Hoody, 281 Neb. 767 (Neb. 2011) (definition of "mental disorder" for tolling/extension contexts: incapacity preventing understanding legal rights or instituting actions)