In re Trust of Urban

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

In re Trust of Urban

Additional Case Names


Case Number
Call Date
March 31, 2021
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Case Location
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-20-0345 In re Trust of Urban

Polk County District Court, Hon. Rachel A. Daugherty

Attorneys:  George H. Moyer (Moyer, Moyer & Lafleur, for Appellant, Richard Urban); David J. Skalka (Croker, Huck, Kasher, DeWitt, Anderson & Gonderinger, LLC, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants – Brian Beckner, Special Fiduciary, and Janet K. Neujahr, Personal Representative)

Civil: Contract; Specific performance

Proceedings Below:  The district court found that Appellees have superior title to the property at issue and the court entered an order of ejectment to the Appellant, ordered that the Appellant’s interest in the real estate be foreclosed, and ordered that the real estate be sold by sheriff’s sale within 90 days. The court further ordered that the proceeds of the sale should be applied first to the costs of the sale and then to what the Appellant owes under the contract, which the court found to be $686,183.33 and accruing interest at $56.55 per day. Any remainder thereafter was ordered to go to the Appellant. The district court determined that Appellees’ specific performance claim was barred by a 10-year statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-202, with the time running from Appellant’s last payment on the contract in 2001. The court determined that Appellant’s payment of real estate taxes that was a required obligation under the contract did not toll the statute of limitations and the court rejected Appellees’ argument that the cause of action did not accrue until Appellees first threatened foreclosure in December 2018.

Issues on Appeal: Whether the district court 1) erred by failing to apply Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-202 to bar Appellees’ action in ejectment; 2) failed to apply the Occupying Claimant Act to an action in ejectment; 3) failed to determine the value of the lasting improvements Appellant made to the real estate; 4) failed to conduct an appraisal of the amount by which the improvements Appellant had made to the real estate had enhanced the value; 5) applied the wrong measure of damages for the Appellant in an action in ejectment; and 6) erred by finding the amount due on the installment contract for the sale of real estate was $686,183.33.

Issue on Cross-Appeal: Whether the trial court erred in finding that Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ claim for specific performance was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Schedule Code