Upper Republican NRD v. Dundy County Board of Equalization

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Upper Republican NRD v. Dundy County Board of Equalization

Case Number
Call Date
March 9, 2018
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Case Location
Case Summary

S-17-814 Dundy County Board of Equalization (Appellant) v. Upper Republican Natural Resource District; FEM, Inc. (Cross-Appellant); M & L Cattle Company (Cross-Appellant); and Steve Yost

Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission

Attorneys:  Jeanelle R. Lust and Richard C. Reier (Knudsen, Berkheimer, Richardson & Endacott, LLP) for Appellant; Todd R. McWha (Waite McWha & Heng) and Lindsay E. Pedersen for FEM and M & L; Joel E. Burke, (Burke & Pribbeno, LLP) for URNRD

Civil:  TERC appeal

Proceedings Below:  The URNRD appealed the Dundy County Assessor and DCBE’s decisions, which determined the properties were not tax exempt in 2013, 2014, and 2015. The TERC ruled that most of the properties were tax exempt. Regarding the property that was not tax exempt, the TERC ruled that FEM and M & L (collectively FEM) were responsible for the tax liability, because the URNRD could not assume tax liability, but ruled their liability void because FEM’s due process rights had been violated by the DCBE and it did not have the authority to remand the matter.

Issues:  Whether TERC unlawfully determined that: (1-3) certain properties were exempt from property taxation for 2013, 2014 and 2015; (4) the property taxes for the nonexempt property could not be assessed to URNRD or, alternatively, assigned to FEM; (5) DCBE violated FEM’s due process rights by failing to notify it of the tax exemption hearing; (6) it lacked authority to assign the tax liability to FEM; (7) the tax liabilities of FEM were void.

Cross-Appeal: Whether TERC incorrectly determined: (1) it had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether any alleged taxes could be assessed to URNRD, or assigned to FEM; (2) the lease’s terms conflicted with § 77-202.11(1); (3) FEM’s due process rights were not violated when it did not receive direct notice of the Assessor’s determination.


Schedule Code