S-21-0364 Sandra K. Nieveen (Appellant) v. TAX 106, A Nebraska General Partnership, et al. (Appellees)
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County, Judge Kevin R. McManaman
Attorneys: Jennifer Gaughan, Mark T. Bestul, and Caitlin Cedfeldt (Legal Aid of Nebraska for Appellant) with Christina M. Martin and Deborah J. LaFetra (Pro Hac Vice from Pacific Legal Foundation), Christian R. Blunk (Harris & Associates, P.C., L.L.O. for Appellees, TAX 106 and Vintage Management, LLC), Daniel J. Zieg (Chief Deputy Lancaster County Attorney), John J. Schoettle and Lincoln J. Korell (Asst. Solicitors General for the Attorney General for the State of Nebraska), and Timothy L. Moll (Rembolt Ludkte, LLP as Amicus Curiae for Nebraska Association of County Officials).
Civil: Nebraska Tax Certificate statutes
Proceedings below: Appellant argued that Nebraska’s tax certificate statutes were unconstitutional, and on appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that these statutes were constitutional. See Nieveen v. TAX 106, 311 Neb. 574, 974 N.W.2d 15 (2022). The United States Supreme Court then vacated the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision with directions that this Court reconsider the case in light of Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023).
Issues: On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, Appellant made the following assignments of error: 1) The District Court erred in determining that the Appellant failed to prove that she suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the tax sale which would allow her the extended redemption time under NEB. REV. STAT. § 77-1827; 2) The District Court erred in granting the motion to dismiss the Appellant’s constitutional claims; A) The District Court erred in finding Appellant failed to state a claim for relief upon which relief can be granted under the state and federal Takings Clause and Article I Section 25 of the Nebraska Constitution; B) The District Court erred in finding Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the state and federal Due Process Clauses; C) The District Court erred in finding Appellant failed to state a claim for relief upon which relief can be granted under the state and federal excessive fines and fees clauses; and 3) The District Court erred in granting Garver and Lancaster County’s motion for Summary Judgment.