- 825 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

Robin J. Wisner, as Personal Representa

the Estate of Gladys P. Wisner, deceas

appellant, v. Vandelay Investm

L.L.C., a Nebraska limited liabili

company, et al., appellee

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed August 24, 2018. No. S-16-451.

1. Standing: Jurisdiction: Parties. Standing is a jurisdictional component 

of a party’s case because only a party who has standing may invoke the 

jurisdiction of a court.

2. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. The question of jurisdiction is a question of law, upon which an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the trial court.

3. Equity: Quiet Title. A quiet title action sounds in equity.

4. Equity: Appeal and Error. On appeal from an equity action, an appellate court tries factual questions de novo on the record and, as to questions of both fact and law, is obligated to reach a conclusion independent 

of the conclusion reached by the trial court, provided that where credible 

evidence is in conflict in a material issue of fact, the appellate court 

considers and may give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard 

and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather 

than another.

5. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach 

an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the 

court below.

6. Standing: Words and Phrases. Standing is the legal or equitable right, 

title, or interest in the subject matter of the controversy.

7. Jurisdiction: Standing. The requirement of standing is fundamental to 

a court’s exercise of jurisdiction, and either a litigant or a court before 

which a case is pending can raise the question of standing at any time 

during the proceeding.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

10/05/2018 08:13 AM CDT
- 826 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

8. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale: Standing. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1844 (Reissue 

2009) sets forth the conditions precedent to questioning title conveyed 

under a tax deed; to obtain standing to redeem property after the issuance of a tax deed, even if title under a tax deed is void or voidable, a 

party must satisfy these conditions precedent.

9. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale: Public Officers and Employees. To comply 

with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1844 (Reissue 2009), a party only needs to 

show that it has tendered the tax payment to the treasurer, not that the 

taxes have actually been paid.

10. Pleadings: Evidence: Words and Phrases. A judicial admission is a 

formal act done in the course of judicial proceedings which is a substitute for evidence, thereby waiving or dispensing with the production of 

evidence by conceding for the purpose of litigation that the proposition 

of fact alleged by the opponent is true.

11. Jurisdiction. While parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction 

upon a judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent, nor may 

subject matter jurisdiction be created by waiver, estoppel, consent, or 

conduct of the parties, such does not prevent a party from conclusively 

admitting the truth of an underlying fact required to establish subject 

matter jurisdiction by judicial admission.

12. Pleadings: Evidence. Judicial admissions must be unequivocal, deliberate, and clear, and not the product of mistake or inadvertence.

13. Pleadings: Intent. A judicial admission does not extend beyond the 

intendment of the admission as clearly disclosed by its context.

14. Pleadings: Words and Phrases. Generally, an admission made in a 

pleading on which the trial is had is more than an ordinary admission; it 

is a judicial admission.

15. Pleadings: Proof. It is an elementary rule of pleading that matters 

admitted by the pleadings need not be proved.

16. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale: Taxes: Evidence. A showing pursuant to Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 77-1844 (Reissue 2009) of taxes paid must be made by the 

evidence and not by allegations in the pleadings alone.

17. Real Estate: Taxes: Tax Sale: Words and Phrases. Under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 77-1801 et seq. (Reissue 2009, Cum. Supp. 2016 & Supp. 2017), 

the term “redemption” refers to paying the amount shown on the certificate and all subsequent taxes, along with the interest accrued thereon 

and any statutory fees.

18. Pleadings: Evidence: Waiver. A party may waive its right to rely on 

an opponent’s admission by failing to object to the opponent’s offer of 

contrary evidence or introducing contrary evidence itself.
- 827 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

19. Pleadings: Evidence: Parties. A party is bound to its admission absent 

the court’s relieving it, in exercise of the court’s judicial discretion, from 

that consequence.

20. Appeal and Error. An argument not presented to or decided by the trial 

court is not appropriate for consideration on appeal.

21. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. Components of a series or collection of 

statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter are in pari materia and 

should be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the 

intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions are consistent, harmonious, and sensible.

22. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale: Standing: Public Officers and Employees: 

Case Disapproved. To satisfy the tax payment requirement in Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 77-1844 (Reissue 2009), a party must show the tender or 

payment of taxes due to the county treasurer; Hauxwell v. Henning, 291 

Neb. 1, 863 N.W.2d 798 (2015), is disapproved to the extent it can be 

read to authorize satisfying the standing requirement in § 77-1844 by 

tender or payment to the tax deed holder.

23. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale: Statutes. The statutory prerequisites to defeating title, in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1843 (Reissue 2009), apply only to 

those tax deeds made after substantial compliance with Neb. Rev. 

Stat. §§ 77-1831 to 77-1842 (Reissue 2009, Cum. Supp. 2016 & 

Supp. 2017).

24. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale: Proof: Presumptions: Evidence. A county 

treasurer’s tax deed is presumptive evidence that the procedures required 

by law to make a good and valid tax sale and vest title in the purchaser 

were done. The presumption is not conclusive and may be rebutted, 

but the burden is upon the party attacking the validity of such a deed 

to show by competent evidence some jurisdictional defect voiding 

the deed.

25. Tax Sale: Service of Process. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1832 (Reissue 

2009), service need only be provided to the owner of record at the 

address where the property tax statement was mailed and may only be 

done by certified mail, return receipt requested.

26. Statutes. A court must attempt to give effect to all parts of a statute, 

and if it can be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be rejected as 

superfluous or meaningless.

27. Tax Sale: Notice: Service of Process: Words and Phrases. Under Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 77-1834 (Cum. Supp. 2016), the phrase “diligent inquiry” 

requires the tax certificate holder to obtain the address where the property tax statement was mailed in order to send notice by certified mail 

before moving to service by publication.
- 828 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

28. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Generally, statutory language is to be 

given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not 

resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which 

are plain, direct, and unambiguous.

29. Statutes. A statute can be considered ambiguous when a particular 

interpretation from the face of the statute could lead to an anomalous, 

unusual, or absurd result.

30. ____. It is impermissible to follow a literal reading that engenders 

absurd consequences where there is an alternative interpretation that 

reasonably effects a statute’s purpose.

31. Statutes: Intent. In the exposition of statutes, the reason and intention 

of the lawgiver will control the strict letter of the law when the latter 

would lead to palpable injustice or absurdity.

32. Real Estate: Taxes: Tax Sale. The overall objective of the certificate 

method for delinquent taxes is the recovery of unpaid taxes on real 

property.

33. Statutes: Courts: Words and Phrases. A term of art is a word or 

phrase having a specific, precise meaning in a given specialty apart from 

its general meaning in ordinary contexts. The Nebraska Supreme Court 

has ascribed the term of art meaning to statutory terms when necessitated by the statute’s context.

34. Tax Sale: Notice: Service of Process: Words and Phrases. The word 

“found” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1834 (Cum. Supp. 2016) means “able to 

be served.”

35. Tax Sale: Notice: Service of Process: Proof. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 77-1834 (Cum. Supp. 2016), a tax certificate holder may provide 

service by publication to an owner of record who was not able to be 

served by certified mail at the address where the property tax statement 

was mailed, upon proof of compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1832 

(Reissue 2009) if the owner, in fact, lives at such address.

36. Courts: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Upon further review from 

a judgment of the Nebraska Court of Appeals, the Nebraska Supreme 

Court will not reverse a judgment which it deems to be correct simply because its reasoning differs from that employed by the Court 

of Appeals.

37. Tax Sale: Notice: Proof. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1835 (Cum. Supp. 

2016), a proof of publication needs to state only that notice was published in the manner provided in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1834 (Cum. Supp. 

2016).

38. Affidavits. In the absence of a sufficient showing to the contrary, the 

affidavit of the publisher that a newspaper was one of general circulation in the county must be held sufficient to establish the fact.
- 829 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

39. Tax Sale: Notice: Words and Phrases. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1834 

(Cum. Supp. 2016), the plain meaning of the word “in” shows that a 

newspaper only need be generally circulated within the county, not 

throughout the entire county.

40. Courts: Appeal and Error. Upon reversing a decision of the Nebraska 

Court of Appeals, the Nebraska Supreme Court may consider, as it 

deems appropriate, some or all of the assignments of error the Court of 

Appeals did not reach.

41. Deeds: Tax Sale. In order to defeat a tax deed, a party must show 

that it satisfied the conditions precedent in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1843 

(Reissue 2009).

42. Tax Sale: Mental Health: Time. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1827 (Reissue 

2009) extends the redemption period for a mental disorder only if the 

owner had a mental disorder at the time of the property’s sale.

43. Statutes: Presumptions: Legislature: Intent. In interpreting a statute, 

a court is guided by the presumption that the Legislature intended a 

sensible rather than absurd result in enacting the statute.

44. Tax Sale: Mental Health: Words and Phrases. A person with a “mental disorder” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1827 (Cum. Supp. 2016) is one 

who suffers from a condition of mental derangement which actually 

prevents the sufferer from understanding his or her legal rights or from 

instituting legal action, and a mental disorder within the meaning of 

§ 77-1827 is an incapacity which disqualifies one from acting for the 

protection of one’s rights.

45. Equity. Equity strives to do justice; it is not a rigid concept, but, instead, 

is determined on a case-by-case basis according to concepts of justice 

and fairness.

Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, Moore,

Chief Judge, and Inbody and Riedmann, Judges, on ap

thereto from the District Court for Lincoln County, Richa

A. Birch, Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed, a

cause remanded with directions.

David W. Pederson, of Pederson & Troshynski, for appellant.

Robert S. Lannin and Chris S. Schmidt, of Baylor, 

Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt, L.L.P., for appellee Vandelay 

Investments, L.L.C.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, St

Funke, J
- 830 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

Funke, 

Robin J. Wisner, personal representative of the estate of 

Gladys P. Wisner, deceased, appealed from a district court 

judgment that quieted title to certain property in favor of 

Vandelay Investments, L.L.C. (Vandelay), and dismissed his 

complaint—which requested that the court set aside Vandelay’s 

tax deed and permit him to exercise a right of redemption. 

The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s 

decision and remanded the cause after finding Vandelay had 

failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements before 

applying for the tax deed, which failure rendered Vandelay’s 

deed void.

On further review, we conclude that (1) Robin had standing 

to question Vandelay’s tax deed, (2) Vandelay complied with 

the statutory notice requirements before applying for the tax 

deed, and (3) Robin failed to prove that the extension to the 

statutory redemption period for an owner with a mental disorder applied. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of 

Appeals and remand the cause with directions that the Court of 

Appeals affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

1. Statutory Framew

This case involves the purchase of real property due to 

delinquent real estate taxes.1 The purchaser of any real property sold by the county treasurer for taxes is entitled to a 

certificate in writing, commonly known as a tax certificate or 

tax sale certificate.2 This certificate represents a transfer of the 

state’s lien on the property to the purchaser and describes the 

property, the amount paid by the purchaser, and the date that 

the purchaser will be entitled to a deed.3 Tax certificates can 

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1801 et seq. (Reissue 2009, Cum. Supp. 2016 & 

Supp. 2017) and § 77-1901 et seq. (Reissue 2009 & Cum. Supp. 2016).

2 § 77-1818.

3 Coffin v. Old Line Life Ins. Co., 138 Neb. 857, 295 N.W. 884 (1941); 

§ 77-1818; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-203 (Reissue 2009).
- 831 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

be assigned by endorsement, and the assignee steps into the 

shoes of the purchaser.4

A property owner may redeem his or her property by paying 

the county treasurer the amount shown on the certificate and 

all subsequent taxes, along with the interest accrued thereon 

and any statutory costs.5 If the property is not redeemed 

within 3 years, however, the tax certificate holder may pursue 

either one of two options: (1) apply for a deed of conveyance for the property, commonly known as a tax deed, with 

the county treasurer 6 or (2) proceed in district court to foreclosure on its lien and compel the sale of the property.7

 Tax 

sale certificates and the sale of tax certificates are governed 

by chapter 77, article 18, of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, 

and the foreclosure of tax certificates is governed by chapter 

77, article 19, of the Nebraska Revised Statutes for all tax 

sale certificates sold and issued between January 1, 2010, and 

December 31, 2017.8

Vandelay elected to pursue the tax deed method. Under 

this method, the holder of the tax certificate has a 6-month 

period, commencing 3 years from the date of the sale of the 

property, to apply for a tax deed from the county treasurer.9

Upon a county treasurer’s delivery of the tax deed to the tax 

certificate holder, a property owner loses the ability to redeem 

the property through the county treasurer.10 If the certificate 

holder waits longer than 3 years 6 months from the sale to 

apply for a tax deed, the certificate ceases to be valid and the 

lien of taxes for which the property was sold is discharged.11

4 § 77-1822.

5 §§ 77-1824 and 77-1830.

6 § 77-1837. See, generally, § 77-1801 et seq.

7 § 77-1902. See, generally, § 77-1901 et seq.

8 § 77-1837.01.

9 § 77-1837.

10 § 77-1824.

11 § 77-1856.
- 832 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

However, at least 3 months before applying for the tax deed, 

the holder of the tax certificate must serve the record owner 

and encumbrancers of record with sufficient notice that application for a tax deed will be made.12

After a tax deed has been issued, the owner of the property may recover the property by proving the tax deed issued 

to the tax certificate holder is either void or voidable. A tax 

deed is void if the tax certificate holder did not substantially 

comply with the notice requirements.13 A tax deed is voidable 

if the property owner has a right to redeem the property and 

has exercised such right.14 While a property owner’s ability to 

redeem property typically ends upon the delivery of a tax deed, 

an owner with a mental disorder at the time of the property’s 

sale may redeem the property within 5 years from the date of 

the sale.15

Here, Robin claims that Vandelay did not sufficiently comply with the notice requirements to obtain the tax deed. He 

further contends that he has a right to redemption under this 

extended redemption period due to the mental disorder of 

Gladys, the record owner of the property.

2. Issuance of Tax Deed to V

The real estate involved in this action consists of 480 acres, 

containing irrigated cropland, rangeland, and a homestead; is 

located about 9 miles southeast of North Platte, Nebraska; and 

has the following legal description: “The North Half (N1⁄2) and 

the North Half of the South Half (N1⁄2S1⁄2) of Section TwentyNine (29), Township Thirteen (13) North, Range Twenty-Nine 

(29) West of the 6th P.M., in Lincoln County, Nebraska.”

Gladys and her husband moved onto the property in 1949 

and inherited it upon the passing of Gladys’ father in 1971. 

12 § 77-1831 (Cum. Supp. 2012).

13 Ottaco Acceptance, Inc. v. Larkin, 273 Neb. 765, 733 N.W.2d 539 (2007). 

See §§ 77-1842 and 77-1843.

14 § 77-1843.

15 § 77-1827.
- 833 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

They had two sons, Robin and Roger Wisner, and two daughters. After Gladys’ husband died in 2007, Roger primarily 

cared for Gladys and handled her affairs until his own death in 

2009. Robin then assisted Gladys in moving from the homestead to a retirement community and arranged for her bills to 

be paid from her trust by a bank’s trust department.

Robin testified he assumed the trust department was paying 

the real estate taxes, because he thought Roger had probably 

paid them from the trust previously. While Robin stated that 

he had access to semiannual records from the trust, he testified that he did not typically check them closely or at all and 

that he never saw that the real estate taxes were being paid 

from it.

In 2010, the real estate taxes on the property became delinquent. In March 2011, the Lincoln County treasurer sold a tax 

sale certificate on the property to Acron Business Services, 

Inc. In February 2014, Vandelay purchased the tax sale certificate from Acron Business Services. Randy James, one 

of Vandelay’s owners, obtained the address where Gladys 

received her property tax statements, which was that of the 

retirement community. In March 2014, Vandelay sent notice 

of its intent to apply for a tax deed to Gladys at that address 

by certified mail with a return receipt requested, which was 

returned as “unclaimed.”

Despite the return of the certified mailing, James believed 

he had Gladys’ actual address because it was not returned as 

sent to a vacant address or not deliverable as addressed. In 

addition, James had found a newspaper article, dated June 11, 

2011, indicating that Gladys, in fact, lived at the retirement 

community.

Vandelay then published notice of its intent to apply for a 

tax deed in the Sutherland Courier-Times newspaper (CourierTimes) for 3 consecutive weeks. Evidence was presented that 

the Courier-Times covers events affecting Lincoln County, 

Nebraska, and residents in Sutherland, Hershey, and Paxton, 

Nebraska, and that approximately 1,300 weekly editions are 

sent to subscribers and distributed to racks in those three 
- 834 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

communities. In ZIP codes covering North Platte, there are 

about 100 Courier-Times subscribers but no distribution racks. 

Vandelay also sent a copy of the publicized notice to Gladys’ 

address by first-class mail, which was not returned.

In August 2014, Vandelay applied for a tax deed. Included 

with its application were a copy of the certified mail return 

receipt, a proof of publication in the Courier-Times, and an 

affidavit from James attesting that he had complied with the 

service requirements. The proof of publication attested that 

the Courier-Times is a legal newspaper in general circulation 

that is published in Sutherland and that the attached notice was 

published for 3 consecutive weeks, dates specified. The county 

treasurer delivered a tax deed to the property to Vandelay in 

September 2014.

Through the relevant period, the property was under lease, 

but the lease was not recorded. Shortly after the tax deed was 

filed, however, the lessee informed Robin that a deed had been 

issued in Vandelay’s favor. Robin, as the holder of a power of 

attorney for Gladys, attempted to redeem the tax sale certificate 

with Vandelay, which Vandelay rejected.

3. District Court Proce

Gladys, by and through Robin, filed a complaint against 

Vandelay, requesting to have Vandelay’s tax deed voided, have 

her deed redeemed pursuant to the mental disorder extension, 

and title quieted in her name. Vandelay filed a counterclaim 

seeking to quiet title in its favor. Robin was substituted as the 

party plaintiff after Gladys’ death.

The court ruled Vandelay had complied with the statutory requirements for notice and publication. It reasoned 

that “[i]f Gladys could not be served after compliance by 

[Vandelay] with [§] 77-1832, she was therefore not found for 

service within the meaning of [§] 77-1834.” The court also 

found the publication in the Courier-Times complied with the 

statutory requirement. Further, the court ruled Robin failed to 

prove Gladys had a mental disorder, and it rejected Robin’s 
- 835 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

equity argument. Thus, the court dismissed Robin’s complaint 

with prejudice and quieted title in favor of Vandelay.

Robin filed a timely appeal.

4. Court of Appeals Procee

Before the Court of Appeals, Robin assigned, restated, that 

the district court erred in (1) finding Vandelay complied with 

the statutory notice and publication requirements for obtaining a treasurer’s tax deed, (2) finding Robin failed to prove 

Gladys suffered from a mental disorder, and (3) failing to use 

its equitable authority to remedy the situation.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision 

and remanded the cause for further proceedings after holding that Gladys was entitled to redeem the property because 

Vandelay had not served Gladys with notice.16 It reasoned that 

Vandelay’s notice by certified mail was insufficient because it 

was returned as “‘unclaimed.’”17 Further, the Court of Appeals 

stated that notice by publication could not be relied on because 

Vandelay knew Gladys’ address, so she had been “found.”18

The Court of Appeals did not reach Robin’s second and third 

assignments of error.

Vandelay filed a timely petition for further review, which 

this court granted.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Vandelay assigns, reordered and restated, that the Court of 

Appeals erred in (1) not determining Robin lacks standing 

to challenge the tax deed, under § 77-1844; (2) interpreting 

§ 77-1834 not to permit service by publication in this case; (3) 

not interpreting the term “found” as the equivalent of being 

“served”; (4) voiding Vandelay’s tax deed and determining 

Gladys was entitled to redeem the property; and (5) failing to 

16 See Wisner v. Vandelay Investments, No. A-16-451, 2017 WL 2399492 

(Neb. App. May 30, 2017) (selected for posting to court website).

17 Id. at *4.

18 Id.
- 836 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

acknowledge Vandelay’s sending of a copy of the publication 

notice by first-class mail to Gladys’ address of record, which 

copy was not returned, as accomplishing service.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] Standing is a jurisdictional component of a party’s case 

because only a party who has standing may invoke the jurisdiction of a court.19 The question of jurisdiction is a question of 

law, upon which an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the trial court.20

[3,4] A quiet title action sounds in equity.21 On appeal from 

an equity action, an appellate court tries factual questions de 

novo on the record and, as to questions of both fact and law, 

is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the conclusion reached by the trial court, provided that where credible 

evidence is in conflict in a material issue of fact, the appellate 

court considers and may give weight to the fact that the trial 

judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.22

[5] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for 

which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the 

court below.23

IV. ANALYSIS

1. Robin Has Standing to 

Vandelay’s Tax 

Vandelay contends Robin lacks standing to challenge its 

tax deed. It argues Robin did not satisfy a condition precedent 

19 Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B. Servs. of New York, 297 Neb. 246, 898 

N.W.2d 366 (2017).

20 J.S. v. Grand Island Public Schools, 297 Neb. 347, 899 N.W.2d 893 

(2017).

21 Royal v. McKee, 298 Neb. 560, 905 N.W.2d 51 (2017).

22 Id.

23 J.S., supra note 20.
- 837 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

to questioning the validity of its tax deed, under § 77-1844, 

because he failed to offer any evidence that he either paid 

or tendered payment of the taxes due on the property to the 

county treasurer. Vandelay further argues that its response to 

Robin’s allegation in his pleading—that he tendered payment 

to the county treasurer—cannot be considered a judicial admission regarding tender to the county treasurer because its statement was not unequivocal, clear, or deliberate.

Robin argues Vandelay’s answer was a judicial admission, 

which acted as a substitute for such evidence by conclusively 

admitting the fact’s truth in this case. He also argues tendering payment to Vandelay satisfied condition precedent of 

§ 77-1844, citing Hauxwell v. Henning.

24

(a) Statutory Requirements to Obtain 

Standing to Challenge Tax Deed

[6,7] Standing is the legal or equitable right, title, or interest in the subject matter of the controversy.25 The requirement 

of standing is fundamental to a court’s exercise of jurisdiction, and either a litigant or a court before which a case is 

pending can raise the question of standing at any time during the proceeding.26 A party invoking a court’s or tribunal’s 

jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the elements 

of standing.27

[8,9] To obtain standing to redeem property after the issuance of a tax deed, even if title under a tax deed is void or 

voidable, a party must satisfy the requirements of § 77-1844.28

Section 77-1844 sets forth the conditions precedent to questioning title conveyed under a tax deed.29 Under § 77-1844, 

24 Hauxwell v. Henning, 291 Neb. 1, 863 N.W.2d 798 (2015).

25 Landrum v. City of Omaha Planning Bd., 297 Neb. 165, 899 N.W.2d 598 

(2017).

26 Id.

27 Applied Underwriters, supra note 19.

28 See, Hauxwell, supra note 24; Ottaco Acceptance, Inc., supra note 13.

29 Ottaco Acceptance, Inc., supra note 13.
- 838 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

a party must prove the person under whom he or she claims 

title (1) had title to the property at the time of the tax sale 

and (2) paid all taxes due upon the property. To comply with 

§ 77-1844, a party only needs to show that it has tendered the 

tax payment to the treasurer, not that the taxes have actually 

been paid.30 Payment or tender thereof may be made before or 

during the trial, or before final judgment.31

(b) Vandelay’s Answer Constituted Judicial 

Admission That Robin Tendered Payment 

of Taxes Due to County Treasurer

[10,11] A judicial admission is a formal act done in the 

course of judicial proceedings which is a substitute for evidence, thereby waiving or dispensing with the production 

of evidence by conceding for the purpose of litigation that 

the proposition of fact alleged by the opponent is true.32

While parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon 

a judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent, nor may 

subject matter jurisdiction be created by waiver, estoppel, 

consent, or conduct of the parties,33 such does not prevent a 

party from conclusively admitting the truth of an underlying 

fact required to establish subject matter jurisdiction by judicial admission.

This distinction is illustrated by J.S. v. Grand Island Public 

Schools,

34 where we held the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appellant did not serve the appellee 

with a copy of the petition after the appellee waived such service. Here, contrariwise, the allegation is that Vandelay admitted 

the taxes had actually been tendered to the county treasurer, a 

condition precedent for standing.

30 Hauxwell, supra note 24.

31 Ottaco Acceptance, Inc., supra note 13.

32 Id.

33 J.S., supra note 20.

34 Id.
- 839 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

[12,13] Judicial admissions must be unequivocal, deliberate, 

and clear, and not the product of mistake or inadvertence.35 A 

judicial admission does not extend beyond the intendment of 

the admission as clearly disclosed by its context.36

(i) Admission in Pleading May Serve as 

Sufficient Evidence to Satisfy Standing 

Requirement in § 77-1844

[14,15] We begin by addressing Vandelay’s argument that an 

admission in its answer could not satisfy the standing requirement. Generally, an admission made in a pleading on which the 

trial is had is more than an ordinary admission; it is a judicial 

admission.37 It is an elementary rule of pleading that matters 

admitted by the pleadings need not be proved.38 Despite these 

propositions, Vandelay points to Hauxwell, where we stated 

that for the purposes of § 77-1844, “[t]he showing of taxes 

paid must be made by the evidence and not by the pleadings alone.”39

Our proposition in Hauxwell originated in the modification of our opinion on rehearing of Cornell v. Maverick Loan 

& Trust Co.,

40 which affirmed our opinion with an explanation that we had not referenced the predecessor statute to 

§ 77-1844 because the taxes were clearly not shown to have 

been paid. While we stated in our opinion on rehearing that 

the pleadings alone were insufficient to provide such proof, 

our discussion of the facts in our initial decision reveals that 

the plaintiff had alleged tender of payment in its complaint 

but does not state the fact was admitted by the defendant. 

35 In re Estate of Radford, 297 Neb. 748, 901 N.W.2d 261 (2017).

36 Lewison v. Renner, 298 Neb. 654, 905 N.W.2d 540 (2018).

37 Id.

38 Id.

39 Hauxwell, supra note 24, 291 Neb. at 6, 863 N.W.2d at 802.

40 Cornell v. Maverick Loan & Trust Co., 95 Neb. 9, 144 N.W. 1074 (1914), 

modified on denial of rehearing 95 Neb. 842, 147 N.W. 697.
- 840 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

Thus, we do not find a conflict between our statement in 

Cornell and our propositions of law concerning admissions 

in pleadings.

[16] Nevertheless, as a matter of clarity, we amend our 

proposition from Cornell as follows: The showing pursuant to 

§ 77-1844 of taxes paid must be made by the evidence and not 

by allegations in the pleadings alone.

(ii) Vandelay Admitted Robin Tendered 

Redemption to County Treasurer

Regarding Robin’s efforts to pay the taxes due on the 

property, paragraph 16 of the complaint alleges, “[Robin] 

presented the redemption to [Vandelay] and to the Lincoln 

County Treasurer within forty-five (45) days of [Vandelay’s] 

Application for Tax Deed, but the County Treasurer declined to 

accept the redemption for filing”; Vandelay’s answer “[a]dmits 

that Lincoln County Treasurer declined to accept [Robin’s] 

redemption, but denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 16.”

Vandelay asserts that Robin’s allegation should be read as 

two separate allegations: (1) Robin presented redemption to 

Vandelay and the county treasurer and (2) the county treasurer 

declined to accept Robin’s redemption. It argues its answer 

admitted only the second allegation and denied the first allegation. It argues that reading its answer to admit that Robin 

tendered payment to the county treasurer would give no effect 

to its denial.

We disagree with Vandelay’s interpretation. Vandelay’s 

admission that the county treasurer declined to accept Robin’s 

redemption necessarily admits Robin tendered redemption to 

the county treasurer; redemption cannot be denied if it was 

never offered. Despite Vandelay’s contention, this interpretation gives effect to its general denial because the allegation that 

Robin tendered payment to Vandelay is completely separate 

from the allegation concerning the county treasurer.

[17] Further, we find that this admission is clear regarding 

the tender of all of the taxes due on the property. As stated 
- 841 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

above, redemption under § 77-1801 et seq. refers to paying 

the amount shown on the certificate and all subsequent taxes, 

along with the interest accrued thereon and any statutory fees.41

Thus, Vandelay’s response conclusively admitted Robin tendered payment of all taxes due on the property to the county 

treasurer and acted as a substitute for evidence of such, dispensing with Robin’s need to produce such evidence for the 

purpose of this case.

[18] Vandelay’s additional arguments that its admission was 

an inadvertency and that Robin waived its judicial admission 

are unavailing. In Robison v. Madsen,

42 we recognized that a 

party may waive its right to rely on an opponent’s admission 

by failing to object to the opponent’s offer of contrary evidence 

or introducing contrary evidence itself.43 Robin’s testimony 

that he tendered payment to Vandelay and that the taxes were 

unpaid at the time of trial was not contrary to the judicial 

admission concerning Robin’s tender of payment to the county 

treasurer. Accordingly, Robin did not offer contrary evidence 

waiving Vandelay’s admission.

[19,20] Further, a party is bound to its admission absent the 

court’s relieving it, in exercise of the court’s judicial discretion, from that consequence.44 The requirements of § 77-1844 

are clearly stated in the statute and well established in our case 

law. If Vandelay had not intended to admit that Robin tendered 

payment to the county treasurer, it should have raised the 

issue in the district court, where it could have requested to be 

relieved of the consequence of its admission. An argument not 

presented to or decided by the trial court is not appropriate for 

consideration on appeal.45 Therefore, Vandelay cannot argue 

41 §§ 77-1824 and 77-1830.

42 Robison v. Madsen, 246 Neb. 22, 516 N.W.2d 594 (1994).

43 Id. (citing Collision Center Paint & Body v. Campbell, 773 S.W.2d 354 

(Tex. App. 1989); Jenni v. Gamel, 602 S.W.2d 696 (Mo. App. 1980); and 

31A C.J.S. Evidence § 381 c. (1964)).

44 See Kipf v. Bitner, 150 Neb. 155, 33 N.W.2d 518 (1948).

45 Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76, 907 N.W.2d 275 (2018).
- 842 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

for the first time on appeal that it should not be bound by the 

plain meaning of its admission.

The evidence presented at trial also clearly established that 

Gladys had title to the property at the time of its sale. Therefore, 

Robin proved that he had standing to question Vandelay’s tax 

deed, under § 77-1844.

(c) Tender of Payment to Tax Deed Holder 

Is Not Sufficient to Obtain Standing

Robin also argued that we held in Hauxwell that payment 

or tender of payment to a deed holder is sufficient to obtain 

standing, under § 77-1844.46 We address this argument to 

clarify our holding in Hauxwell.

In Hauxwell, Selma B. Hauxwell filed a complaint seeking 

to quiet title by claim of adverse possession in certain properties after Ryan R. Hanzlick and his wife acquired tax deeds to 

the same.47 We held that the district court erred by not dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction due to Hauxwell’s 

failure to establish standing, under § 77-1844.48 Robin cites 

our conclusion that “Hauxwell did not plead or demonstrate 

through evidence that payment of the past due taxes was ever 

made or tendered to the treasurer or to the Hanzlicks.”49

Directly preceding this conclusion, however, we cited our 

longstanding proposition of law that to satisfy the tax payment 

requirement of § 77-1844, “the party needs only to show the 

tender of payment of taxes to the treasurer.”50 In concluding 

that there was also no payment or tender to the Hanzlicks, we 

provided no support or explanation for the implication that 

doing so would satisfy the standing requirements of § 77-1844 

and expanding our precedent.

46 Hauxwell, supra note 24.

47 Id.

48 Id.

49 See id. at 7, 863 N.W.2d at 802.

50 Id. at 6, 863 N.W.2d at 802 (emphasis supplied).
- 843 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

When we adopted this longstanding proposition, it was 

based on our reasoning that when a plaintiff has tendered payment to the county treasurer and such payment is refused, a 

“plaintiff could not do more” under the tax certificate statutes 

to satisfy the standing requirement.51 This reasoning itself necessarily rejects an argument that making payment to the tax 

deed holder would be an acceptable alternative.

[21] Our statement in Hauxwell was also not supported by 

our tax certificate statutes.52 Components of a series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter are in pari 

materia and should be conjunctively considered and construed 

to determine the intent of the Legislature, so that different 

provisions are consistent, harmonious, and sensible.53 Sections 

77-1844 and 77-1843 both provide statutory prerequisites for 

property owners to recover their property after the issuance of 

a tax deed.

While § 77-1844 does not specify whom the taxes due on 

the property must be paid to, § 77-1843 requires the property 

to have been redeemed pursuant to various statutory sections. Section 77-1843 explicitly references Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 77-1701(1) (Reissue 2009), which provides in part: “The 

county treasurer shall be ex officio county collector of all taxes 

levied within the county.” As we mentioned above, redemption, 

a term of art in § 77-1801 et seq., includes the payment of all 

property taxes due.

[22] Thus, we hold that to satisfy the tax payment requirement in § 77-1844, a party must show the tender or payment 

of taxes due to the county treasurer, and we disapprove of 

Hauxwell to the extent it can be read to authorize satisfying the 

standing requirement in § 77-1844 by tender or payment to the 

tax deed holder.54

51 Howell v. Jordan, 94 Neb. 264, 266, 143 N.W. 217, 218 (1913).

52 Hauxwell, supra note 24.

53 In re Trust of Shire, 299 Neb. 25, 907 N.W.2d 263 (2018).

54 Hauxwell, supra note 24.
- 844 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

2. Vandelay Substantially Comp

With Statutory Notice Requirem

Before Applying for Ta

Robin argues Vandelay’s tax deed is void because he presented sufficient evidence to overcome the statutory presumption that the notice requirements were complied with before 

Vandelay applied for the tax deed. Specifically, he argues that 

Vandelay was not entitled to provide notice by publication 

and that Vandelay did not comply with the statutory publication requirements.

[23] Section 77-1843 provides the statutory prerequisites 

to defeating title “[i]n all controversies and suits involving 

the title to real property claimed and held under and by virtue 

of a deed made substantially by the treasurer in the manner 

provided by sections 77-1831 to 77-1842 . . . .”55 We have 

interpreted § 77-1843 to apply only to those tax deeds made 

after substantial compliance with the aforementioned sections.56 Accordingly, we consider the validity of Vandelay’s 

tax deed.

[24] A county treasurer’s tax deed is presumptive evidence 

that the procedures required by law to make a good and valid 

tax sale and vest title in the purchaser were done.57 A tax deed 

holder is entitled to receive a tax deed from the county treasurer only after it “serves or causes to be served a notice,” containing specific information provided therein, at least 3 months 

before applying for the tax deed.58 Specifically, § 77-1842 

provides that a tax deed is presumptive evidence that “the 

notice had been served or due publication made as required 

in sections 77-1831 to 77-1835 before the time of redemption 

had expired.” The presumption is not conclusive and may be 

55 See Ottaco Acceptance, Inc., supra note 13.

56 Id.

57 SID No. 424 v. Tristar Mgmt., 288 Neb. 425, 850 N.W.2d 745 (2014). See 

§ 77-1842.

58 § 77-1831.
- 845 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

rebutted, but the burden is upon the party attacking the validity 

of such a deed to show by competent evidence some jurisdictional defect voiding the deed.59

As to proper notice under the tax deed method, § 77-1832, 

in relevant part, provides: “Service of the notice provided by 

section 77-1831 shall be made by certified mail, return receipt 

requested, upon the person in whose name the title to the real 

property appears of record to the address where the property 

tax statement was mailed . . . .”

This section, however, has been the subject of significant revision since the turn of the century. The 2009 version 

resulted from a 2003 amendment to the following language: 

“Service of the notice provided by section 77-1831 shall be 

made on every person in actual possession or occupancy of the 

real property [and] upon the person in whose name the title to 

the real property appears of record . . . .”60

Further, the language of § 77-1832 (Supp. 2017), currently 

in effect, provides:

(1) Service of the notice provided by section 77-1831 

shall be made by:

(a) Personal, residence, certified mail, or designated 

delivery service as described in section 25-505.01 upon 

every person in actual possession or occupancy of the 

real property who qualifies as an owner-occupant under 

section 77-1824.01; or

(b) Certified mail service as described in section 

25-505.01 upon:

(i) The person in whose name the title to the real property appears of record who does not qualify as an owneroccupant under section 77-1824.01. The notice shall be 

sent to the name and address to which the property tax 

statement was mailed[.]

59 Ottaco Acceptance, Inc. v. Huntzinger, 268 Neb. 258, 682 N.W.2d 232 

(2004). See § 77-1842.

60 § 77-1832 (Reissue 1996). See 2003 Neb. Laws, L.B. 319.
- 846 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

[25] In summary, direct service under the recent versions of 

§ 77-1832 was provided for as follows: Before 2003, service 

was required both (1) on every person in actual possession 

or occupancy of the real property and (2) upon the person in 

whose name the title to the real property appears of record, 

and service was not limited to certified mail; under § 77-1832 

(Reissue 2009), service need only be provided to the owner 

of record at the address where the property tax statement was 

mailed and may only be done by certified mail, return receipt 

requested; for tax certificates issued in 2018, service must be 

(1) made upon every owner-occupant by the methods authorized in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Reissue 2016) and (2) 

provided to the owner of record, if not an owner-occupant, at 

the address where the property tax statement was mailed by 

certified mail.

Besides § 77-1832, the only other section that provides for 

effectuating the service required by § 77-1831 is § 77-1834. 

Section 77-1834, in relevant part, has consistently provided:

If the person in whose name the title to the real property appears of record in the office of the register of 

deeds in the county . . . cannot, upon diligent inquiry, 

be found, then such purchaser or his or her assignee 

shall publish the notice in some newspaper published 

in the county and having a general circulation in the 

county . . . .

There is no dispute that Vandelay sent notice to Gladys by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, and that it was returned 

as “‘unclaimed’” after three attempted deliveries.61 Because 

Vandelay was unable to serve Gladys in compliance with 

§ 77-1832, it could comply with § 77-1831 only by causing 

Gladys to be served under § 77-1834. Accordingly, we consider 

Robin’s arguments that Vandelay was not entitled to provide 

service under § 77-1834 and that the service it did provide 

was deficient.

61 Wisner v. Vandelay Investments, supra note 16, 2017 WL 2399492 at *4.
- 847 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

(a) Vandelay Was Entitled to Serve Gladys 

by Publication After It Was Unable to 

Serve Her Notice by Certified Mail

Robin argues we should interpret “found” consistently with 

its plain meaning of a person’s whereabouts’ being actually 

known, as the Court of Appeals held. Under this interpretation, he argues that Vandelay could not serve Gladys by publication because it actually knew her address and that instead, 

its only course of action was to resend notice by certified mail 

or initiate foreclosure proceedings. Robin also contends publication was not available because Vandelay did not conduct 

a “diligent inquiry” by publishing notice after sending only 

one certified mailing and taking no other actions to provide 

Gladys notice.62

Vandelay contends that because § 77-1801 et seq. allows 

service only by certified mail and publication, we should construe the statutes harmoniously by interpreting someone to be 

“‘found’” only when he or she has been “[actually] ‘served’” 

by certified mail, not when his or her address of record simply 

becomes “‘known.’” It also argues that its efforts were diligent 

because it sent the notice of publication to Gladys by first-class 

mail, which was not returned.

(i) “Diligent Inquiry” Under § 77-1834 

Requires Party to Request Address Where 

Property Tax Statements Are Sent 

From County Treasurer

We begin by considering the meaning of “diligent inquiry,” 

under § 77-1834. This phrase is not defined in the statutes, and 

we have not previously interpreted its meaning. Robin argues 

we should interpret the phrase consistently with “reasonable 

diligence,” from Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-517.02 (Reissue 2016).

Section 25-517.02 provides: “Upon motion and showing 

by affidavit that service cannot be made with reasonable diligence by any other method provided by statute, the court may 

62 Brief for appellant on petition for further review at 20.
- 848 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

permit service to be made . . . (2) by publication . . . .” In 

In re Interest of A.W.,

63 we described a “reasonably diligent” 

search as

not requir[ing] the use of all possible or conceivable 

means of discovery, but [a]s such an inquiry as a reasonably prudent person would make in view of the circumstances [that] must extend to those places where information is likely to be obtained and to those persons who, in 

the ordinary course of events, would be likely to receive 

news of or from the absent person.

While the phrases are not identical, the context of both 

concerns the effort required to determine the location of an 

individual for the purpose of providing service. As mentioned 

above, components of a series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter are in pari materia and 

should be conjunctively considered and construed to determine 

the intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions are 

consistent, harmonious, and sensible.64 Based on the similar 

subject matter, an argument could be made to interpret these 

phrases to have a similar meaning. However, these phrases 

are not components of a series of statutes. Instead, the context 

of the statutes for service under § 77-1831 is quite unique in 

its limitation.

As mentioned above, § 77-1832 (Reissue 2009) authorizes a 

tax certificate holder to serve the owner of record only at the 

address where the property tax statement was mailed. Unlike 

the pre-2003 amended statute—which allowed for an owner 

of record to be served by mail at any address—the limitation 

on service to the address where the property tax statement was 

mailed remains in effect under the current statutory scheme. As 

a result, a party’s efforts to discover the actual location of an 

owner of record are fruitless because the tax certificate holder 

has no authority to serve him or her at that location.

63 In Interest of A.W., 224 Neb. 764, 766, 401 N.W.2d 477, 479 (1987).

64 In re Trust of Shire, supra note 53.
- 849 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

[26,27] Nevertheless, a court must attempt to give effect to 

all parts of a statute, and if it can be avoided, no word, clause, 

or sentence will be rejected as superfluous or meaningless.65

In this case, the Legislature has rendered the phrase “diligent 

inquiry” largely superfluous through its 2003 amendment to 

§ 77-1834, but we give the phrase effect by acknowledging that 

it is still incumbent upon the tax certificate holder to obtain the 

address where the property tax statement was mailed in order 

to send notice by certified mail before moving to service by 

publication. Vandelay took this action, and the statutes do not 

require it to do any more.

The parties’ arguments surrounding “diligent inquiry,” however, do not concern the efforts required under § 77-1834 to 

locate the address of the owner of record. It is undisputed 

that Vandelay did, in fact, discover Gladys’ actual address. 

Instead, the parties’ argument, essentially, requests us to read 

all of the prerequisites to notice by publication, contained in 

§ 25-517.02, into § 77-1834, under the guise of interpreting 

“diligent inquiry.” This we cannot do. A court will not read 

into a statute a meaning that is not there.66 While subjecting a 

tax certificate holder to the same prerequisites for service by 

publication as are required in § 25-517.02 might be a prudent 

decision for the Legislature to make, it is solely within the 

Legislature’s purview to do so. Therefore, the parties’ arguments concerning whether Vandelay took sufficient steps above 

those required in § 77-1832 are irrelevant.

(ii) Owner of Record Is “Found” Only if 

He or She Is “Able to Be Served,” 

Under § 77-1834

We next consider whether Vandelay was entitled to serve 

Gladys notice by publication after it was unable to serve her by 

certified mail, despite having actual knowledge of her location. 

65 Woodmen of the World v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 299 Neb. 43, 907 

N.W.2d 1 (2018).

66 State v. Gill, 297 Neb. 852, 901 N.W.2d 679 (2017).
- 850 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

Whether Vandelay was able to serve Gladys by publication 

depends on our interpretation of the term “found.”

[28-30] Generally, statutory language is to be given its plain 

and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort 

to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words 

which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.67 However, “‘[a] 

statute can . . . be considered ambiguous when a particular 

interpretation from the face of a statute could lead to an anomalous, unusual or absurd result.’”68 For “‘[i]t is impermissible 

to follow a literal reading that engenders absurd consequences 

where there is an alternative interpretation that reasonably 

effects the statute’s purpose.’”69

[31] In the exposition of statutes, the reason and intention of 

the lawgiver will control the strict letter of the law when the 

latter would lead to palpable injustice or absurdity.70 As mentioned above, components of a series or collection of statutes 

pertaining to a certain subject matter are in pari materia and 

should be conjunctively considered and construed to determine 

the intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions are 

consistent, harmonious, and sensible.71

The definition of “found,” as the past tense of “find,” is “I. 

To come upon by chance or in the course of events. . . . II. To 

discover or attain by search or effort.”72 Consistently with this 

plain meaning, the Court of Appeals interpreted “found” to 

mean Vandelay actually knew Gladys’ address. The implication 

of ascribing this plain meaning to the term, however, would to a 

67 Becher v. Becher, 299 Neb. 206, 908 N.W.2d 12 (2018).

68 U.S. v. E.T.H., 833 F.3d 931, 938 (8th Cir. 2016), quoting Breedlove 

v. Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc., 140 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 1998). 

Accord, e.g., Dean v. State, 288 Neb. 530, 849 N.W.2d 138 (2014).

69 U.S. v. E.T.H., supra note 68, 833 F.3d at 938, quoting Ashley, Drew & 

Northern Ry. v. United Transp. U., 625 F.2d 1357 (8th Cir. 1980).

70 Anthony, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 283 Neb. 868, 813 N.W.2d 467 (2012).

71 In re Trust of Shire, supra note 53.

72 “Find,” Oxford English Dictionary Online, http://www.oed.com/view/ 

Entry/70348 (last visited Aug. 3, 2018).
- 851 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

large extent obviate the utility of the tax deed statutes. It would, 

based on the narrow service procedure in § 77-1832, preclude 

the holder of a tax certificate from obtaining a tax deed if an 

owner of record either refuses to accept a certified mailing of 

the notice to the address where the property tax statement was 

sent or lives at any other address and can be found there.

[32] We have stated that the overall objective of the certificate method for delinquent taxes is the recovery of unpaid 

taxes on real property.73 As explained above, the Legislature 

created two separate methods for a tax certificate holder to 

elect to pursue to recover the taxes he or she paid on behalf of 

the deficient owner. Neither of these policies supports a construction of the tax deed statutes rewarding an owner, already 

deficient in paying taxes, by allowing him or her to force the 

initiation of judicial foreclosure proceedings simply by avoiding the notice, which the tax deed method was designed to 

provide the owner regarding his or her rights.74 Therefore, we 

reject the plain meaning of “found.”

[33] Vandelay, contrariwise, argues that we should interpret 

“found” to mean “‘able to be served.’”75 While this definition is not supported by any plain or ordinary meaning of the 

word, it does find support in the context of civil procedure as 

a legal term of art. “A ‘term of art’ is a word or phrase having 

a specific, precise meaning in a given specialty apart from its 

general meaning in ordinary contexts.”76 We have ascribed the 

term of art meaning to statutory terms when necessitated by the 

statute’s context.77

73 SID No. 424, supra note 57.

74 Id.

75 Supplemental brief for appellee on petition for further review at 27.

76 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 418 at 537 (2009).

77 In re Estate of Young, No. A-96-423, 1997 WL 426191 (Neb. App. July 

1, 1997) (not designated for permanent publication), citing In re Estate of 

Hannan, 246 Neb. 828, 523 N.W.2d 672 (1994). See, also, e.g., Spady v. 

Spady, 284 Neb. 885, 824 N.W.2d 366 (2012); ATS Mobile Telephone, Inc. 

v. General Communications Co., Inc., 204 Neb. 141, 282 N.W.2d 16 (1979).
- 852 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

In fact, we long ascribed such a meaning to the word 

“found” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-408 (Reissue 1985), which 

has since been repealed.78 Section 25-408, in relevant part, 

provided: “An action . . . against a nonresident of this state or 

a foreign corporation may be brought in any county . . . where 

said defendant may be found . . . .” Regarding foreign corporations, we had held that “[a] defendant ‘may be found’ in any 

county in which proper service can be had upon its agent.”79

Further, in other states, courts have also determined “found” 

to mean “‘found for legal service’” in the context of civil 

procedure.80 These states’ venue statutes state the following: 

“When the defendant is a resident of the state, either in the 

county within which the defendant resides, or in the county 

within which the plaintiff resides, and the defendant may be 

found.”81 The Nevada Supreme Court interpreted “found,” in 

this context, as follows:

It is clear from the statute that the word “found” is used 

in contradistinction to the word “reside.” The action then 

may be instituted by a resident of the state in a court of 

a county, regardless of the residence of the defendant, 

if it is alleged that he can be found within the county 

where suit is instituted and is actually served with process therein.82

This term of art definition of “found” also provides a 

harmonious construction to the tax deed statutes by giving 

effect to the dichotomy created by §§ 77-1832 and 77-1834 

to accomplish the service requirement of § 77-1831. Under 

this construction, a tax certificate holder must attempt to serve 

78 See 1986 Neb. Laws, L.B. 529, § 58.

79 Mittelstadt v. Rouzer, 213 Neb. 178, 181, 328 N.W.2d 467, 469 (1982), 

quoting Juckett v. Brennaman, 99 Neb. 755, 157 N.W. 925 (1916).

80 Shields v. Shields, 115 Mont. 146, 155, 139 P.2d 528, 530 (1943). Accord 

State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Manners, 161 S.W.3d 373 (Mo. 2005).

81 See, e.g., Mo. Ann. Stat. § 508.010(1) (West Cum. Supp. 2018). Accord 

Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-11 (2013).

82 Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 36 Nev. 494, 500-501, 137 P. 824, 826 (1913).
- 853 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

the owner of record under the requirements of § 77-1832, 

but, if such service is impossible or unsuccessful, then the tax 

certificate holder may provide service by publication. Such 

an interpretation gives effect to the statutory requirements 

while retaining the overall viability of the tax deed statutes as 

a whole.

[34,35] Therefore, we hold that the word “found” in 

§ 77-1834 means “able to be served.” Accordingly, we hold 

that § 77-1834 authorizes a tax certificate holder to provide 

service by publication to an owner of record who was not able 

to be served by certified mail at the address where the property tax statement was mailed, upon proof of compliance with 

§ 77-1832 if the owner, in fact, lives at such address.

In this case, Vandelay obtained the address where Gladys 

received the property tax statements for the property. It then 

sent notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, which 

notice was returned as “unclaimed” after three failed attempts 

at delivery. Vandelay submitted this into evidence along with 

an affidavit of its efforts to comply with § 77-1832, as 

required by § 77-1833 (Cum. Supp. 2012). This constituted 

complete compliance with the requirements of § 77-1832, 

and because Gladys was not able to be served in this manner, 

Vandelay appropriately proceeded with service by publication. Therefore, we find the Court of Appeals’ determination 

that Vandelay was not entitled to serve Gladys by publication erroneous.

[36] Before we reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, 

however, we consider Robin’s alternative argument before the 

Court of Appeals that the tax deed was void because Vandelay 

failed to comply with the publication requirements, which the 

Court of Appeals did not reach. Upon further review from 

a judgment of the Court of Appeals, the Nebraska Supreme 

Court will not reverse a judgment which it deems to be correct 

simply because its reasoning differs from that employed by the 

Court of Appeals.83

83 In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237, 872 N.W.2d 37 (2015).
- 854 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

(b) Vandelay Complied With Publication 

Requirements of § 77-1834

Robin argues Vandelay’s proof of publication did not comply with § 77-1835 because it did not say the Courier-Times 

newspaper was in general circulation in the county and because 

he offered evidence the Courier-Times was not, in fact, in circulation throughout Lincoln County. Further, Robin contends 

Vandelay did not comply with § 77-1834 because there was 

another Lincoln County newspaper Gladys was more likely 

to see.

As mentioned above, § 77-1834, in relevant part, provides 

that “the purchaser or his or her assignee shall publish the 

notice in some newspaper published in the county and having a 

general circulation in the county.” Section 77-1835, in relevant 

part, states:

Proof of publication shall be made by filing in the county 

treasurer’s office the affidavit of the publisher, manager, 

or other employee of such newspaper, that to his or her 

personal knowledge, the notice was published for the time 

and in the manner provided in this section, setting out 

a copy of the notice and the date upon which the same 

was published.

[37] There is no requirement in the preceding sections 

that specific language must appear in a proof of publication. Instead, the proof of publication needs to state only that 

notice was published in the manner provided in § 77-1834. 

In addition, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-523 (Reissue 2016) defines 

a “legal newspaper” for the publication of legal and other 

official notice as one which has a “bona fide circulation of at 

least three hundred paid subscriptions weekly, and shall have 

been published within the county for fifty-two successive 

weeks prior to the publication of such notice, and be printed, 

either in whole or in part, in an office maintained at the place 

of publication.”

The proof of publication sufficiently stated that the CourierTimes is a legal newspaper having a bona fide circulation of at 
- 855 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

least 300 paid weekly subscriptions and that it had been published within the county for 52 consecutive weeks prior to the 

publication of such notice.

[38] Robin also failed to produce sufficient evidence the 

Courier-Times was not, in fact, in general circulation in Lincoln 

County. In the absence of a sufficient showing to the contrary, 

the affidavit of the publisher that a newspaper was one of general circulation in the county must be held sufficient to establish the fact.84

[39] Robin submitted evidence that the Courier-Times had 

only 1,300 weekly subscriptions among three villages within 

Lincoln County. However, absent anything to the contrary, 

statutory language is to be given its plain meaning, and a court 

will not look beyond the statute or interpret it when the meaning of its words is plain, direct, and unambiguous.85 The plain 

meaning of the word “in,” in § 77-1834, shows that the newspaper only needed to be generally circulated within Lincoln 

County, not throughout the entire county, as Robin argues.

Robin’s evidence does not constitute sufficient evidence that 

the Courier-Times was not a legal newspaper in general circulation in Lincoln County.

Robin also produced evidence another newspaper published 

in Lincoln County had greater circulation throughout the 

county and, specifically, in the ZIP code where Gladys and the 

property were located. He argues that Vandelay did not satisfy 

the publication requirement by not publishing the notice in 

this newspaper, by reading some type of good faith requirement into § 77-1834. However, § 77-1834 does not require 

publication in the newspaper of greatest circulation in the 

county, and we will not impose such a requirement. As mentioned above, a court will not read into a statute a meaning 

that is not there.86

84 See Bourke v. Somers, 3 Neb. (Unoff.) 761, 92 N.W. 990 (1902).

85 In re Trust of Shire, supra note 53.

86 State v. Gill, supra note 66.
- 856 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

Nevertheless, Robin directs us to State, ex rel. Elliott, v. 

Holliday,

87 where in 1892, we stated: “Legal advertisements 

should not be inserted in an obscure paper where the probabilities are that they will be seen by but few, where there is a 

paper of general circulation in the county, because the object of 

the law will be in part at least defeated.” In Holliday, we were 

considering a sheriff’s refusal to publish mortgage foreclosure 

sale notices in any newspaper except the one published by his 

political party, which newspaper was alleged to have been “‘of 

such small circulation as in effect to utterly defeat the object 

of the law.’”88 We do not foreclose the possibility that there is 

some threshold requirement for the circulation of a newspaper 

to satisfy the requirements of § 77-1834, but Holliday is inapplicable here, where, as we stated above, Robin has not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the statutory presumption that § 77-1834 was complied with.

Because we conclude Robin did not overcome the presumption Vandelay complied with the statutory notice requirements 

to show Vandelay’s tax deed is void, we must reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

[40] Upon reversing a decision of the Court of Appeals, 

we may consider, as we deem appropriate, some or all of the 

assignments of error the Court of Appeals did not reach.89

Because the Court of Appeals determined that Vandelay’s tax 

deed was void, it did not consider whether Gladys had a 

mental disorder entitling Robin to redeem the property under 

the expanded statutory period or whether equity requires the 

protection of Robin’s interests. The district court fully decided 

these issues, and the meaning of “mental disorder,” under 

§ 77-1827, is a matter of first impression. Thus, we elect to 

consider these assignments of error.

87 State, ex rel. Elliott, v. Holliday, 35 Neb. 327, 333, 53 N.W. 142, 144 

(1892).

88 Id. at 331, 53 N.W. at 143.

89 Burns v. Burns, 293 Neb. 633, 879 N.W.2d 375 (2016).
- 857 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

3. Robin Failed to Prove He Was Enti

Extended Redemption Period in § 7

Robin argues that he was entitled to redeem the property 

because Gladys suffered from a mental disorder that extended 

the statutory redemption period and because Vandelay admitted 

that Robin had tendered redemption to the county treasurer. He 

argues that the district court erred in not finding Gladys had 

a mental disorder by relying on Vandelay’s expert, who never 

examined Gladys and only selectively reviewed her medical 

records, over her long-term physician.

Vandelay argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove 

Gladys had a mental disorder affecting her ability to make 

legal decisions and that we should defer to the lower court’s 

factual finding that Vandelay’s expert was more credible than 

Gladys’ physician, whose testimony was not supported by his 

own medical records.

[41] In order to defeat a tax deed, a party must show that 

it satisfied the conditions precedent in § 77-1843. One of 

the options to satisfy § 77-1843 includes proving that (1) 

the property has been redeemed from the sale and (2) such 

redemption was had or made for the use and benefit of persons 

having the right of redemption under the laws of this state. 

As discussed above, Vandelay admitted that Robin tendered 

redemption to the county treasurer, which is sufficient to satisfy that condition.

Though we are aware that in 2013, the Legislature revised 

§ 77-1827 to replace the term “mental retardation” with the 

term “intellectual disability,” for purposes of this matter we 

quote from the version of the statute in place during the relevant period of this controversy. The 2009 version states: “The 

real property of persons with mental retardation or a mental 

disorder so sold, or any interest they may have in real property 

sold for taxes, may be redeemed at any time within five years 

after such sale.”90 There is no contention that Gladys suffered 

90 § 77-1827 (Reissue 2009).
- 858 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

from the first condition, so we consider only whether she suffered from the second condition.

[42,43] The language of the statute indicates that the 

extended redemption period for a mental disorder exists if the 

owner had a mental disorder at the time of the property’s sale. 

Contrariwise, interpreting the statute to extend the redemption period for an individual who only later develops a mental disorder within the 5-year period provided therein would 

be absurd because such an individual could not reobtain the 

right to redeem the property after a tax deed had been validly issued. In interpreting a statute, a court is guided by the 

presumption that the Legislature intended a sensible rather 

than absurd result in enacting the statute.91 Accordingly, we 

restrict our analysis to whether Gladys had a mental disorder 

in March 2011.

At trial, each party called an expert witness concerning 

Gladys’ mental state. The witnesses agreed that a mental disorder is, as characterized by Vandelay’s expert, “marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind and emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning 

of the individual.”

Robin called Dr. Ronald Asher, who provided Gladys’ medical care beginning in at least 2006. He stated that an MRI 

record in his 2006 records indicated Gladys had vascular disease in her brain, which causes small strokes. He described 

Gladys’ mental functioning as starting at a normal level in 

2006 but slowly deteriorating until the time of her death, 

when she was mostly bedridden. Asher explained that Gladys’ 

deterioration was a “step-wise progression,” where she would 

suffer a small stroke impairing her mental status for 7 to 10 

days before she recovered to a level slightly worse than before 

the stroke.

Asher opined Gladys had a mental disorder and dementia 

from at least 2009 until her death, but he could not determine exactly when she developed the mental disorder. He 

91 Burns v. Burns, 296 Neb. 184, 892 N.W.2d 135 (2017).
- 859 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

explained she was unable to understand complicated issues, 

make appropriate judgments, or manage financial matters—

beyond writing checks and simple cash management. While 

Asher never performed any psychological testing or prescribed 

Gladys dementia medication, he explained she had never suffered any behavioral issues warranting intervention. Finally, he 

acknowledged his notes from June 2012, “I thought [her] mental status was good,” and May 2015, “mental status reassuring,” but explained the notes were relative to her status during 

that period.

Robin and one of his sisters provided anecdotal testimony 

about Gladys’ false memories and lack of reasoning, which 

were consistent with the symptoms of a mental disorder as 

described by the experts. Robin also testified that Gladys’ 

mental condition gradually declined but that the most significant change occurred after she was hospitalized for a fall in 

December 2013.

Regarding Gladys’ ability to handle her affairs, Robin and 

his sister stated that Gladys tended to keep all documents 

and mail she received and that they found records from doctor appointments, letters from Social Security, various bills, 

junk mail, and a handicapped parking pass Gladys claimed to 

have thrown away, but no property tax statements. Robin also 

stated Gladys asked him about her bills frequently after 2009 to 

make sure they were being paid. Robin testified he confirmed 

with the retirement community staff that Gladys continued to 

receive her mail throughout her time living there.

Dr. John Goldner, a neurologist, testified for Vandelay 

after conducting a comprehensive review of Gladys’ medical 

records. Specifically, he relied on Asher’s notes, the absence of 

psychological testing and prescriptions treating dementia, and 

the daily notes from the retirement community—describing 

Gladys as alert, orientated, and able to make her needs known 

and make her own decisions, through 2013. Goldner testified 

that Asher’s notes indicated that in April 2013, Gladys suffered 

from decreased memory, and that then in December 2013, 

Gladys moved from a residential unit to the assisted living 
- 860 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

unit at the retirement community because she required a higher 

level of care. He testified that at Gladys’ age, it was possible 

that her functioning could be deficient enough to be considered a mental disorder on certain days, but that she appeared 

to generally be able to function within normal limits for her 

advanced age, which is not de facto a mental disorder. He testified Gladys’ functioning could not be classified as a mental 

disorder before mid-2014, at which point her mental capacity 

was inconclusive.

The court determined that Asher’s records did not support 

his conclusions that Gladys had a mental disorder. It concluded Robin failed to prove Gladys had a mental disorder, 

relying on Goldner’s testimony that Gladys did not suffer from 

a mental disorder any time before mid-2014, the evidence 

that any mental decline she was experiencing was not out of 

line with other individuals her age, and the fact that she was 

never tested for a mental condition or placed on medication 

for dementia.

We have not previously interpreted the term “mental disorder” in the context of § 77-1827 (Cum. Supp. 2016). We have, 

however, interpreted that same phrase in the context of statutory limitations on certain actions. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-213 

(Reissue 2016), in relevant part, provides:

[I]f a person entitled to bring any action [under listed 

statutes] for the recovery of the title or possession of 

lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or for the foreclosure 

of mortgages thereon, is, at the time the cause of action 

accrued . . . a person with a mental disorder . . . every 

such person shall be entitled to bring such action within 

the respective times . . . after such disability is removed.

[44] In Maycock v. Hoody,

92 we adopted the definition of 

“mental disorder” employed by the Court of Appeals, reasoning it was consistent with our interpretation of a previous version of the statute.93 We stated:

92 Maycock v. Hoody, 281 Neb. 767, 799 N.W.2d 322 (2011).

93 See Sacchi v. Blodig, 215 Neb. 817, 341 N.W.2d 326 (1983).
- 861 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

[A] person with a mental disorder under § 25-213 is “one 

who suffers from a condition of mental derangement 

which actually prevents the sufferer from understanding 

his or her legal rights or from instituting legal action[,]” 

and . . . a mental disorder within the meaning of § 25-213 

is “an incapacity which disqualifies one from acting for 

the protection of one’s rights.”94

Because both § 77-1827 and § 25-213 relate to extending 

the time required to exercise a legal right for an individual suffering from a mental disorder, we interpret the meaning of the 

term “mental disorder” consistently among them.

While we review factual issues de novo on the record, we 

give deference to the fact that the trial court observed the testimony of the experts and Wisner family members. The court 

determined that Goldner’s testimony was more credible than 

Asher’s and the Wisners’ because of the contradiction with 

Asher’s records and lack of anyone requesting psychological 

testing for Gladys.

The definition of a mental disorder provided by the experts 

appears to be broader than the standard required by the statute. Accordingly, Goldner’s opinion that Gladys did not suffer 

from any mental disorder before mid-2014 strongly supports 

not finding Gladys to have had a mental disorder in March 

2011, while Asher’s contrary opinion did not contain a precise 

conclusion regarding her ability to understand and protect her 

legal rights.

Both Asher and Robin described Gladys’ mental condition as a slow decline. Asher could not pinpoint when Gladys 

developed a mental disorder but concluded it was in at least 

2009 despite a general consensus that her greatest decline in 

functioning occurred in December 2013. While Asher stated 

that Gladys had a decreased ability to make judgments and 

understand complex issues since 2009, Robin stated that she 

remained vigilant regarding her financial obligations, and 

94 Maycock, supra note 92, 281 Neb. at 776, 799 N.W.2d at 329, quoting 

Vergara v. Lopez-Vasquez, 1 Neb. App. 1141, 510 N.W.2d 550 (1993).
- 862 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

the June 2011 newspaper article indicated that typically, she 

was still functioning near her normal capacity—engaging in 

weekly card games with friends and reading. Finally, Asher’s 

note from June 2012 does not provide any support for his 

conclusion that she had a mental disorder, even if it was only 

describing her relative status.

Based on the district court’s credibility determination and 

our independent review of the evidence, we conclude Robin 

failed to prove Gladys suffered from a mental disorder in 

March 2011. Therefore, her right to redeem the property 

expired when the county treasurer delivered the tax deed 

to Vandelay.

4. Equities of Case Do Not Favor 

Robin argues the equities of this situation warrant this 

court’s permitting him to redeem the property, even if the law 

does not. He argues the undisputed evidence is that Gladys 

was a 95-year-old widow in a retirement community with no 

local family and at least some diminished mental capacity. 

Conversely, he argues Vandelay chose to pursue the less arduous process for a tax deed and did only the bare minimum 

required by the tax deed statutes, in bad faith to deprive Gladys 

of her property at a significant windfall.

The parties dispute whether we may provide an equitable 

remedy at all when the situation is governed by a comprehensive, rigid statutory structure. We need not decide this issue, 

because even assuming, without deciding, that we could craft 

some type of relief for Robin, his characterization of the equities of the situation strongly distorts the reality of this case.

[45] Equity strives to do justice; it is not a rigid concept, 

but, instead, is determined on a case-by-case basis according 

to concepts of justice and fairness.95 But “‘equity follows the 

law to the extent of obeying it and conforming to its general rules and policies whether contained in common law or 

95 Floral Lawns Memorial Gardens Assn. v. Becker, 284 Neb. 532, 822 

N.W.2d 692 (2012).
- 863 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

statute.’”96 This maxim is strictly applicable whenever the 

rights of the parties are clearly defined and established by 

law.97 Also, equitable remedies are generally not available 

where there exists an adequate remedy at law.98

When Roger died in 2009, Robin took responsibility over 

managing Gladys’ affairs. He passed this responsibility to 

the trust department of a bank but, apparently, overlooked 

the property taxes due on the property. Further, his own testimony provided that he did not monitor Gladys’ finances, 

despite her persistent concern about her bills’ being paid. 

Additionally, while Gladys was stated to have retained all 

of her mail, even junk mail, she apparently disposed of her 

repeated notices by Lincoln County and Vandelay regarding 

her property tax deficiency.

Steps could have been taken to ensure that Gladys’ affairs 

were being addressed. When Gladys moved to the retirement 

community in 2009, her address of record was changed with 

the relevant agencies. Robin, as the holder of Gladys’ power of 

attorney, could have directed that all of Gladys’ mail be sent 

to him. He could have had the lease on the property recorded 

with the register of deeds to allow additional notices to be 

sent to the tenant. He could have paid the real estate taxes or 

authorized the trust department to pay the real estate taxes. He 

could have sought to have her mental capacity tested, and if 

Gladys was found to be impaired by reason of disability, he 

could have sought a conservatorship for her. However, Robin 

failed to take any one of the steps to ensure the real estate 

taxes were paid.

Despite the harsh result in this matter, the Legislature has 

established strict rules for the payment of real estate taxes and 

ramifications for the failure to pay those taxes. Vandelay complied with those statutory requirements to obtain a tax deed on 

validly purchased tax certificates. Despite Robin’s arguments 

96 Jeffrey B. v. Amy L., 283 Neb. 940, 949, 814 N.W.2d 737, 745 (2012).

97 Id.

98 Jeffrey B. v. Amy L., supra note 96.
- 864 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

that it did the bare minimum required, Vandelay, in fact, 

researched where to find Gladys; sent Gladys, by certified mail 

to her correct address, notice that an application for a tax deed 

would be made; published notice of the application in a legal 

newspaper of general circulation in Lincoln County; and sent 

the notice of publication to Gladys by first-class mail. The last 

step of mailing the notice of the publication by first-class mail 

was not statutorily required and was made by Vandelay out of 

an abundance of caution to ensure Gladys was not deprived of 

the due process rights in her property.

Hence, the equities of this situation do not favor Robin, and 

this assignment of error is without merit.

V. CONCLUSION

Despite Robin’s standing to challenge Vandelay’s tax deed, 

we conclude Robin failed to present sufficient evidence to 

either overcome the presumption Vandelay provided Gladys 

with sufficient service, as required to obtain a valid tax deed, 

or prove Gladys suffered from a mental disorder at the time 

of her property’s tax sale, extending her statutory redemption 

period. In addition, the tax certificate statutes enacted by the 

Legislature establish a specific process upon the failure to 

pay real estate taxes which does not take into consideration 

the amount of the delinquent tax compared to the value of 

the property. As a result, we determine the record in this case 

does not support providing Robin with a remedy he was not 

entitled to under the statutes. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause with directions that the Court of Appeals affirm the judgment of the 

district court.

Reversed and remanded with direc

Wright and Kelch, JJ., not participati

Cassel, J., dissenting in part.

This court’s admittedly “harsh” result flows from the district 

court’s single failure, amidst an otherwise thorough and correct analysis, to see the forest for the trees. The district court 
- 865 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

rejected Gladys’ estate’s attempt to redeem the property based 

on an extended redemption period authorized where a taxpayer 

suffers from a “mental disorder.”1 The ultimate question here 

is not whether Vandelay is entitled to all of the taxes, fees, 

and costs that it paid, together with all of the interest imposed 

pursuant to a high statutory rate designed to encourage prompt 

payment of real estate taxes. Rather, the question is whether, 

despite a remedy expressly authorized by the Legislature’s 

“strict rules” in anticipation of this situation, Vandelay should 

reap a windfall at the expense of an extremely elderly taxpayer lacking the capacity to take action to protect her rights. 

Because I conclude that Gladys was entitled to the extended 

redemption period and that equity demands its implementation, 

I respectfully dissent.

In all respects but one, the district court rendered an extensive, well-researched, and well-written judgment. On appeal, 

the Court of Appeals concentrated on the complicated tax 

deed method statutes and did not reach the essential issue. On 

further review, my colleagues have almost everything right. I 

agree with this court’s conclusions that Robin had standing to 

challenge the tax deed and that Vandelay substantially complied with the statutory notice requirements for a tax deed, and 

with all of this court’s reasoning leading to those conclusions. 

The court’s analysis regarding those matters is spot on. Only 

where the court turns to the statutory right of redemption do I 

part its company.

This court acknowledges that both parties assert claims 

for quiet title, which sound in equity. As this court’s opinion 

admits, equity strives to do justice determined on a case-bycase basis according to concepts of justice and fairness. This 

court recites the correct standard of review—trying factual 

questions de novo on the record and, as to questions of both 

law and fact, reaching an independent conclusion from that of 

the district court.

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1827 (Cum. Supp. 2016).
- 866 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

Regarding whether Gladys suffered from a mental disorder 

during the pertinent timeframe, I assert that this court should 

give no weight to the district court’s observation of the two 

medical experts. Our standard of review does not demand deference to the district court in any respect. It is purely within 

this court’s discretion. Here, none is due, for two reasons. 

First, the testimony of Vandelay’s expert was presented by 

deposition. As to that physician, the district court was in no 

better position than this court to make credibility assessments. 

Second, where I believe the district court went wrong had little 

to do with its observations of Robin’s expert, who was Gladys’ 

treating physician.

I accept this court’s definition of “mental disorder,”2 which 

the district court also employed. Thus, a mental disorder in this 

context is “‘an incapacity which disqualifies one from acting 

for the protection of one’s rights.’”3

Several facts set the stage, which is essential to an assessment of Gladys’ capacity to protect her rights. She went to live 

at a retirement community in 2009, the year she turned age 

93. She moved there after the deaths of her husband in 2007 

and her son Roger in 2009. The district court recognized that 

“Gladys was generally unfamiliar with financial matters and 

did not pay her own bills.” When she entered the facility, she 

initially lived in the residential section. By the time the tax 

sale certificates were sold in 2011, she was 94 years old. In 

late 2013, at age 97, she suffered a number of falls. Because 

she was no longer ambulatory, she was moved to the facility’s 

assisted living section. By March 2014, as she approached the 

age of 98, she was, as the district court found, suffering from 

numerous chronic medical issues and having difficulty with 

her memory, particularly in recalling names, and with complicated tasks.

2 § 77-1827.

3 Maycock v. Hoody, 281 Neb. 767, 776, 799 N.W.2d 322, 329 (2011).
- 867 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

Both the district court and this court relied on medical 

records kept for a significantly different purpose—to guide 

her caregivers at the facility. Her caregivers were not recording assessments of her understanding and ability to protect 

her rights in financial matters. They were concerned with her 

day-to-day well-being. Thus, it is no surprise that the records 

showed that “she was having no behavioral issues, was kind 

and easy to get along with, was oriented to time, person and 

place, was alert and cooperative, was capable of performing 

simple tasks, and displayed a fairly consistent pattern of normal intellectual behavior.” Vandelay’s expert relied solely on 

these medical records. He never met or observed Gladys. His 

testimony provides no significant insight into Gladys’ capacity 

to protect her rights.

In contrast, Gladys’ longtime physician testified to personal observations and conclusions, over an extended period, 

directly bearing on Gladys’ incapacity which disqualified her 

from acting for the protection of her rights. He observed in 

2006 that she had episodes of confusion and disorientation. 

Those were typically associated with findings suggesting small 

strokes—where imaging studies showed evidence of “white 

matter changes,” that is, “ischemic injury.”

When Gladys moved to the facility in 2009, her doctor 

observed that she was “not really able to make good judgments.” He explained, “You could ask her questions and she 

would give a good response, but if you asked detail, if you . . . 

asked her to make judgments, she really wasn’t able to do that 

very well.” He opined that “over time what you could see is 

that she became less capable.”

From 2009 until the time of Gladys’ death, her doctor saw 

her about every 60 days. Her doctor recalled a “fairly steady 

but gradual deterioration in how well she did.” From his 

observations, he described a “step-wise decrease in her . . . 

functional capacity,” which he characterized as “more mental 

than physical.” He described her ability to do “simple things,” 

such as “describe that she needed to go to the bathroom, she 
- 868 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

was hungry, she was tired.” But he opined that her ability to 

understand business or financial matters from 2009 on was 

“very limited.” He opined that her ability to organize information also was “very limited.” He opined that she suffered 

from a “disorganization of the mind” from 2009 forward. 

And he opined that her cognitive capacity from 2009 forward 

showed that her “ability to deal with anything that was beyond 

simple was not something that she could do.” With respect to 

her reasoning and memory, he opined that “anything that was 

. . . complicated would be beyond what she would be able to 

manage.” Ultimately, Gladys’ doctor opined that from 2009 to 

the time of her death, she suffered from a “mental disorder.” 

He characterized it as “multi-infarct dementia,” that is, “multiple small strokes which . . . progressively knock out sections 

of brain.”

The district court recognized that the question of whether 

by 2014 Gladys suffered from a mental disorder in the statutory sense was “more difficult.” It acknowledged that by the 

spring of 2014, there “had been a decline in Gladys’ cognitive 

and mental status.”

But then the district court missed the forest, stating that the 

“evidence [did] not establish that her decline was out of the 

normal range for a person of her age.” (Emphasis supplied.) 

It defies reason and common sense to ignore the impact of 

extremely advanced age on mental ability. And coupled with 

the testimony of her doctor, supported by imaging showing 

repeated small strokes over a period of years, I cannot agree 

that Gladys had the capacity to act for the protection of her 

own rights in the payment of real estate taxes.

Because I conclude that a de novo review supports the existence of a “mental disorder” as contemplated by § 77-1827 

at the relevant time, I would modify the Court of Appeals’ 

decision and direct that court to reverse the judgment of the 

district court and remand the cause with directions to quiet title 

in Gladys’ estate upon payment by the estate into court of all 

taxes, costs, and fees paid by Vandelay, together with statutory 
- 869 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

WISNER v. VANDELAY INVESTMENTS

Cite as 300 Neb. 825

interest (14 percent per annum) to the time of payment into 

court, to be disbursed to Vandelay in redemption of its tax deed 

and the underlying tax sale certificate.

I reiterate that Vandelay is entitled to the full benefit of 

the payments required for redemption. But Gladys (and now, 

her estate) is no less entitled to justice. That was the exact 

purpose of the statutory extended redemption period. And the 

failure to implement that statute permits Vandelay to reap a 

windfall that borders on the obscene. Because I believe that 

the windfall is an unjust result contrary to statute, I respectfully dissent.