- 351 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

LUND CO. v. CLARK

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 351

The Lund Company, a Nebraska corporation, 

appellee, v. Jerome Clark, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed November 2, 2021. No. A-21-273.

1. Courts: Appeal and Error. In cases where no statement of errors was 

filed and the district court reviewed for plain error, the higher appellate 

court likewise reviews for plain error only.

2. Appeal and Error: Words and Phrases. Plain error exists where there 

is an error, plainly evident from the record but not complained of at 

trial, which prejudicially affects a substantial right of a litigant and is of 

such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of 

justice or result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the 

judicial process.

3. Landlord and Tenant: Actions: Forcible Entry and Detainer.

Where a forcible entry and detainer action is not brought under the 

Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, the action is controlled 

by Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-21,219 to 25-21,235 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. 

Supp. 2020).

Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County, Nathan 

B. Cox, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for 

Sarpy County, Todd J. Hutton, Judge. Judgment of District 

Court affirmed.

Jerome Clark, pro se.

Eugene M. Eckel and Tara E. Holterhaus, of Goosmann Law 

Firm, P.L.C., for appellee.

Riedmann, Bishop, and Arterburn, Judges.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

11/16/2021 12:07 AM CST
- 352 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

LUND CO. v. CLARK

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 351

Bishop, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Jerome Clark, pro se, appeals the decision of the Sarpy 

County District Court that affirmed the county court’s judgment in favor of The Lund Company and against Clark for 

restitution of premises. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

County Court Proceedings

On November 6, 2020, The Lund Company filed a complaint against Clark and “John Doe and Jane Doe, real names 

unknown,” for forcible entry and detainer and sought restitution and possession of an apartment in Bellevue, Nebraska. 

The Lund Company alleged the following: The Lund Company 

was the management agent-in-fact for the owner of certain real 

property located in Bellevue and had authority to rent space 

located at the property to various tenants. Clark and John Doe 

and Jane Doe were occupying an apartment at the property. 

Clark’s wife was the only tenant named on the rental agreement and the only person that signed the lease. Clark’s wife 

informed The Lund Company by email on or about October 

16 that she was no longer living at the premises and requested 

that her name be removed from the lease. Clark and John Doe 

and Jane Doe were not listed as a tenant or occupant on the 

lease and were not authorized to occupy the premises. Clark 

and John Doe and Jane Doe continued to occupy the premises 

after Clark’s wife informed The Lund Company that she was 

no longer occupying the premises. The Lund Company served 

a written 3-day notice to quit on Clark and John Doe and Jane 

Doe on October 27, demanding that they vacate the premises 

within 3 days from the date of the service of the notice, but 

more than 3 days elapsed and they failed and refused to vacate 

the premises and surrender peaceful possession thereof to The 

Lund Company. The Lund Company alleged that it was entitled 

to immediate possession of the premises and a reasonable 

attorney fee.
- 353 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

LUND CO. v. CLARK

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 351

A hearing on the restitution of premises was held on 

November 17, 2020. The Lund Company was represented by 

counsel, but Clark appeared pro se. Testimony was given, and 

exhibits were received into evidence.

The property manager for the apartment testified the lease 

agreement was signed by Clark’s wife. Clark’s wife was the 

only leaseholder, and she and two minor children were the only 

persons named in the lease. The lease, dated June 16, 2020, 

was received into evidence. The property manager prepared a 

rental agreement addendum for Clark’s wife to add Clark to 

the lease agreement, but she never signed the agreement, and 

therefore, the property manager did not have permission to add 

Clark to the lease. The unsigned rental agreement amendment, 

dated July 23, 2020, was received into evidence over Clark’s 

objection that he was “on the lease.”

The property manager testified that he received an email 

from Clark’s wife on October 16, 2020, stating she had moved 

out of the apartment due to “marriage problems” and requesting that her name be taken off of the lease. In an email dated 

October 24, 2020, Clark’s wife stated that she placed the apartment key in the “drop box.” The two emails were received into 

evidence without objection. The Lund Company considered the 

lease agreement to be terminated and the apartment back in its 

possession on October 24. However, Clark and the two minor 

children continued to live in the apartment. Because of Clark’s 

holdover status and the termination of the lease agreement, 

The Lund Company served a 3-day notice to quit to Clark on 

October 27; the proof of service on the notice states that it was 

sent via first-class mail to Clark and posted on the door of the 

apartment and that it was also served by hand delivery. Clark 

did not vacate the apartment and remained in possession at the 

time of the restitution hearing.

Clark testified in his own behalf. Clark is a “disabled man; 

physically, medically frail,” and has “a disability.” He and 

the children were occupants on the lease. Clark stated that 

he was “added to that lease” and that he and the children 

should “not be evicted from a home that we are signed into.” 
- 354 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

LUND CO. v. CLARK

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 351

According to Clark, “[t]his whole shenanigan . . . is all based 

off of retaliation.” Clark received “threat notices” from The 

Lund Company’s law firm; Clark “put up with constant . . . 

harassment” from the apartment complex, the management 

company, and its law firm; and Clark contacted the police “on 

multiple occasions of illegal entries into [his] home.” The Lund 

Company believed Clark’s grievances were not relevant to the 

restitution action for being a holdover tenant.

Clark also stated that “[t]his case should not even be heard 

right now, because evictions are not to be had during the pandemic”; that “[t]here is a Trump moratorium and a CDC order 

out”; and that “evictions are illegal at this particular time . . . 

as of September the 4th [2020].” The Lund Company objected, 

stating, “[T]his is not an eviction for nonpayment of rent, it is 

a holdover tenancy eviction.”

Clark offered numerous exhibits into evidence, which were 

received over The Lund Company’s various objections. Clark’s 

exhibits included the following: Exhibit 6 is a letter dated 

September 10, 2020, from the Nebraska Equal Opportunity 

Commission to Clark’s wife, regarding a housing discrimination complaint that was filed on September 2 that stated that 

an investigation would be conducted. Exhibit 7 is a letter dated 

June 12, 2020, from the apartment complex to Clark’s wife that 

stated her rental application had been conditionally approved. 

Exhibit 8 is a letter dated July 23, 2020, from the apartment 

complex to Clark that stated that his rental application had 

been conditionally approved. Exhibit 9 is a screenshot of the 

apartment complex’s online resident services portal, and on the 

“My Profile” page, it lists Clark as one of the “Co-Residents”; 

however, there appears to be an “Edit Profile” function available on the “My Profile” page. Exhibit 11 is a letter dated 

October 12, 2020, from The Lund Company to Clark’s wife 

“and all other parties”; the letter is a 30-day notice to quit 

for failure to comply with the lease, in part because “Clark is 

not a lease holder or listed as an occupant on the lease, and 

therefore is an unauthorized occupant,” but the notice also 
- 355 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

LUND CO. v. CLARK

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 351

stated that they had 14 days to take the necessary procedures 

to add Clark as a leaseholder. Exhibit 12 is a public accommodations charge of discrimination filed by Clark against the 

apartment complex on October 15 with the Nebraska Equal 

Opportunity Commission. Exhibit 13 is two screenshots, one 

of which has Clark’s name and a profile picture, the apartment complex’s name below Clark’s name, an account balance, 

and a purported link to “Make a Payment.” Exhibit 15 is a 

cease and desist letter dated October 14, 2020, from The Lund 

Company’s law firm to Clark demanding that Clark’s “harassment and intimidation” of the company’s employees “cease and 

desist immediately,” and it references incidents that occurred 

earlier in October. Exhibits 16 and 17 are emails Clark and his 

wife purportedly sent in November to the federal Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention asking for assistance regarding 

the eviction.

The property manager was called back to the stand and 

testified that Clark’s wife was the only leaseholder named on 

the lease agreement and that neither Clark nor his wife signed 

the rental agreement addendum to add Clark to the lease. The 

property manager also testified that anyone who submits an 

application is entered into the company’s system and has access 

to the resident portal; Clark had submitted an application and 

received a conditional approval, but he was never added to the 

lease because the addendum was not signed.

On November 18, 2020, the county court entered judgment 

in favor of The Lund Company and against Clark and John 

Doe and Jane Doe for restitution of the premises and for court 

costs incurred by The Lund Company. The court stated that 

a “writ of restitution shall issue forthwith commanding the 

Sheriff or Constable to remove defendant(s) and all other occupants from the subject premises.” The writ of restitution was 

subsequently entered on November 30 and issued to the Sarpy 

County sheriff that same day.

Clark appealed to the district court. His notice of appeal was 

filed on December 2, 2020.
- 356 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

LUND CO. v. CLARK

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 351

Appeal to District Court

Clark’s appeal was heard before the district court on January 

29, 2021. The Lund Company was represented by counsel, but 

Clark appeared pro se. The district court received the bill of 

exceptions from the county court proceedings into evidence, 

and it heard arguments from the parties.

On March 2, 2021, the district court entered its opinion and 

order. The court noted that Clark had not filed a statement of 

errors in his appeal and that therefore, its review of the record 

was limited to plain error. The court stated that the lease for the 

subject premises was between The Lund Company and Clark’s 

wife, but not Clark himself, and that no lease agreement 

existed between The Lund Company and Clark. The district 

court found that the county court did not err when it found in 

favor of The Lund Company and against Clark and entered a 

writ of restitution. The district court affirmed the judgment of 

the county court.

Clark now appeals to this court.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Clark’s “brief” on appeal was a compilation of documents 

and did not comply with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109 (rev. 

2021); it was therefore stricken by order of the court. Clark 

was given additional time to file a replacement brief, but he 

did not do so. However, no notice of default was sent to Clark 

pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-110(A), and therefore, we 

do not dismiss his appeal for failure to file a brief.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] In cases where no statement of errors was filed and 

the district court reviewed for plain error, the higher appellate court likewise reviews for plain error only. TransCanada 

Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493, 941 N.W.2d 

145 (2020).

[2] Plain error exists where there is an error, plainly evident from the record but not complained of at trial, which 
- 357 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

LUND CO. v. CLARK

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 351

prejudicially affects a substantial right of a litigant and is of 

such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of justice or result in damage to the integrity, reputation, 

and fairness of the judicial process. Id.

ANALYSIS

[3] Where a forcible entry and detainer action is not brought 

under the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, 

the action is controlled by Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-21,219 

to 25-21,235 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp. 2020). See I.P. 

Homeowners v. Morrow, 12 Neb. App. 119, 668 N.W.2d 515 

(2003). The Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act 

defines “[t]enant” as “a person entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others.” 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1410 (Reissue 2018). As noted by the 

district court, the lease for the subject premises was between 

The Lund Company and Clark’s wife, but not Clark himself, 

and no lease agreement existed between The Lund Company 

and Clark. Furthermore, Clark was not otherwise listed as an 

occupant on the lease. Accordingly, the Uniform Residential 

Landlord and Tenant Act did not apply in this case, and the 

action is controlled by §§ 25-21,219 to 25-21,235.

The Lund Company provided Clark the necessary 3-day 

notice to quit the apartment pursuant to § 25-21,221. See, 

also, I.P. Homeowners v. Morrow, supra. When Clark did not 

vacate the premises, The Lund Company brought a forcible 

entry and detainer action against Clark. See § 25-21,220(5) 

(forcible entry and detainer proceedings may be had in all 

cases when defendant is settler or occupier of lands or tenements, without color of title, and to which complainant has 

right of possession). After hearing the evidence, the county 

court found in favor of The Lund Company for restitution of 

the premises and costs of the suit, see § 25-21,226, and the 

court issued a writ of execution thereon, see § 25-21,230. 

Because Clark did not have a lease agreement with The 

Lund Company, we find no plain error in the county court’s 
- 358 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

LUND CO. v. CLARK

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 351

decision to find in favor of The Lund Company and enter a 

writ of restitution.

Additionally, we note that in the county court proceedings, 

Clark stated that there was “a Trump moratorium and a CDC 

order out” and that “evictions are illegal at this particular 

time . . . as of September the 4th [2020].” However, the order 

from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does 

not preclude evictions for reasons other than not paying rent. 

See Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions To Prevent the 

Further Spread of COVID-19, 85 Fed. Reg. 55,292 (Sept. 4, 

2020). The order did not preclude Clark’s removal from the 

apartment because The Lund Company did not seek removal 

based on a failure to pay rent.

Having reviewed the record for plain error, we find none.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the decision of the 

Sarpy County District Court that affirmed the county court’s 

judgment in favor of The Lund Company and against Clark for 

restitution of premises.

Affirmed.