- 742 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

Claudia Vasquez and Cesar Moreno T

appellants, v. CHI Properti

LLC, appelle

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 5, 2019. No. S-17-1287.

1. Motions to Dismiss: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a 

district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting 

the allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

2. Actions: Pleadings: Notice. Civil actions are controlled by a liberal 

pleading regime; a party is only required to set forth a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and 

is not required to plead legal theories or cite appropriate statutes so long 

as the pleading gives fair notice of the claims asserted.

3. Motions to Dismiss: Pleadings. To prevail against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

4. Rules of the Supreme Court: Pleadings. Dismissal under Neb. Ct. R. 

Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6) should be granted only in the unusual case in which 

a plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint 

that there is some insuperable bar to relief.

5. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. In construing statutes, legislative intention is to be determined from a general consideration of a whole act 

with reference to the subject matter to which it applies and the particular topic under which the language in question is found, and intent so 

deduced from the whole will prevail over that of a particular part considered separately.

6. Actions: Landlord and Tenant: Leases: Words and Phrases. A tenant who accepts possession and lives on the property for several months 

thereafter does not have a claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1418 

(Reissue 2018), because the duties described in § 76-1418 pertain to the 

“commencement” of the lease term.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

04/12/2019 12:06 AM CDT
- 743 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

7. Election of Remedies: Estoppel: Claim Preclusion. The doctrine 

of election of remedies is a somewhat vague notion lying somewhere 

between the areas occupied by the doctrines of equitable estoppel and 

claim preclusion.

8. Election of Remedies: Proof. When the election is between remedies 

with different elements of proof under the same complaint, a plaintiff 

can attempt to prove both theories and need only elect one for the purpose of recovery in the event that the trier of fact finds both theories 

were proved.

9. Election of Remedies: Pleadings. So long as the plaintiff does not 

ultimately obtain two recoveries for the same harm, the doctrine of election of remedies does not generally prevent the plaintiff from pleading 

remedies that are mutually exclusive.

10. Election of Remedies. Election of remedies applies only when there are 

inconsistent remedies for redress of the same single injury.

11. Landlord and Tenant: Contracts: Notice: Injunction: Damages: 

Time. So long as a tenant has given notice when required by Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 76-1419 (Reissue 2018), a tenant can seek damages or injunctive 

relief under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1425(2) (Reissue 2018) without sending notice under § 76-1425(1) specifying that the rental agreement will 

terminate upon a date not less than 30 days after receipt of the notice of 

the breach, if not remedied within 14 days.

12. Landlord and Tenant: Election of Remedies: Injunction: Damages: 

Words and Phrases. The reference in the conjunctive to “damages” and 

“injunctive relief” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1425(2) (Reissue 2018) serves 

to vest a tenant with two distinct options for relief and does not require 

that both be pursued in order to pursue either.

13. Actions: Landlord and Tenant: Contracts. Neither Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§§ 76-1430 and 76-1439 (Reissue 2018) nor any other provision of 

the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§§ 76-1402 to 76-1449 (Reissue 2018), indicates that a separate action 

for termination of a rental agreement is a prerequisite to termination 

under the act.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J. 

Michael Coffey, Judge. Affirmed in part, and in part reverse

Katelyn Cherney, of Milton R. Abrahams Legal Clinic, for 

appellants.

Mark S. Dickhute for appellee.
- 744 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, 

Freudenberg, 

NATURE OF CASE

Tenants brought a complaint against their landlord under 

the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA), 

Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 76-1402 to 76-1449 (Reissue 2018). They 

alleged that numerous code violations materially affecting 

their health and safety were present at the time they commenced physical possession of the property, but were not 

discovered until later. The tenants asked the City of Omaha 

Planning Department’s housing division (Housing Division) to 

conduct an inspection of the property, which eventually led to 

the Housing Division’s declaring the property unsafe and unfit 

for human occupancy and ordering the tenants to immediately 

vacate the premises. The landlord failed to perform repairs 

to make the property habitable even after months of repeated 

notices and demands by the Housing Division and the tenants. During much of this time, the tenants continued to pay 

utilities. The tenants eventually gave their landlord 5 days’ 

notice of their intention to terminate the rental agreement. 

The landlord refused to return the tenants’ security deposit or 

reimburse them for utilities paid. The landlord also refused to 

return rent paid for the 2 months that the tenants were mostly 

unable to occupy the premises, which the landlord allegedly 

had demanded in retaliation for the tenants’ reporting to the 

Housing Division. The district court dismissed the complaint 

under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6), and the tenants appeal. 

The question presented is whether the alleged facts state a 

claim for relief under the URLTA.

BACKGROUND

Complain

Claudia Vasquez and Cesar Moreno Tinoco (tenants) filed a 

complaint against CHI Properties, LLC (CHI). After their first 
- 745 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

complaint was dismissed, they were granted leave to amend. 

The amended complaint alleged the following.

On or about May 10, 2016, tenants entered into a written 

agreement to rent property owned by CHI for $850 per month 

and to pay $850 as a security deposit. During the first 8 weeks 

of the lease term, after tenants began living at the property, 

they noticed a water leak in the bathroom that was causing 

mold formation. CHI sent a plumber to repair the leak, but the 

repair was not effective.

CHI failed to adequately respond to tenants’ concerns regarding surface mold in the home. In July 2016, tenants’ minor 

child was treated for mold exposure and the Douglas County 

Health Department was contacted.

By letter dated October 4, 2016, the health department 

issued written recommendations to CHI for resolving an active 

water leak and visible mold. As of November 18, CHI made 

no efforts to follow the recommendations or otherwise resolve 

the water leak and mold.

Tenants contacted the Housing Division, requesting a 

housing inspection for possible housing code violations. The 

Housing Division inspected the property on October 7, 2016, 

and issued a “‘Notice of Property Violation’” to CHI by mail 

on October 14.

When CHI received the violation notice on or around 

October 17, 2016, CHI demanded, in retaliation for tenants’ 

complaint to the Housing Division, that tenants vacate the 

property within 2 weeks.

Around that same time, CHI accepted a payment by tenants in the amount of $850 for November’s rent. Tenants had 

made all prior rent payments since the inception of the rental 

agreement.

On or around November 14, 2016, the Housing Division 

found that CHI had not cured the previously cited violations, 

and additional violations were discovered. There were 31 code 

violations in total, 13 of which were considered to be of a 

“‘high’ severity level.”
- 746 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

On or around November 17, 2016, a major electrical hazard 

at the property was detected by the Housing Division and the 

Omaha Public Power District. This major electrical hazard 

put tenants at risk of serious harm. This hazard existed at the 

commencement of the rental agreement, although tenants were 

unaware of it at that time.

The Housing Division declared the property unsafe and 

unfit for human occupancy and ordered tenants to immediately 

vacate the property. A placard “‘Danger-Closed,’” along with 

a description of the penalties for occupancy, was posted on the 

property by the Housing Division on November 18, 2016.

That same day, CHI spoke with tenants and assured them 

that repairs would be completed within a few days. Tenants 

stayed with family members. There is no allegation that they 

paid rent to their family members.

On or around December 16, 2016, tenants sent written 

notice to CHI demanding performance of the rental agreement. 

The details of this notice are not otherwise described in the 

complaint. Tenants remained barred from the property by the 

Housing Division.

On or around December 19, 2016, the Housing Division 

again inspected the property. It found that CHI was working 

on the electrical issue, but it was not completed, and that CHI 

had not remedied any of the other 30 code violations.

During an inspection on December 28, 2016, the Housing 

Division found that the “‘water is off and the water heater is 

being re-installed.’” The Housing Division notified CHI and 

tenants that no one could occupy the premises until the water 

heater was properly installed.

At some point, despite the Housing Division’s no-occupancy 

order, CHI threatened that if tenants did not resume occupancy, 

it would treat them as if they had abandoned the property and 

dispose of their personal belongings.

On January 9, 2017, tenants mailed a second written notice 

to CHI, demanding that it complete all repairs and inspections 

necessary so that they could resume occupancy.
- 747 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

The Housing Division removed the placard from the property 

on February 3, 2017, and tenants moved back in on February 

5. However, tenants immediately discovered that the water was 

off and major plumbing repairs were in progress. Tenants had 

not paid rent for December 2016 or January 2017, but they had 

paid for television and internet services until approximately 

January 10 and had paid all utility bills until March 14.

On February 6, 2017, CHI demanded and tenants paid $850 

for the February rent. Through a notice posted on February 2, 

CHI had threatened to bring a restitution action if tenants failed 

to pay February’s rent.

The following day, on February 7, 2017, the Housing 

Division issued a new order to vacate and the property was 

replacarded. The Housing Division ordered CHI to hire a 

licensed plumber to correct noncompliant plumbing work and 

complete necessary plumbing inspections within 30 days. CHI 

failed to comply. CHI did not refund tenants their February 

rent payment.

Tenants “terminated their lease effective March 12, 2017, 

and demanded return of all prepaid rent and security after 

tendering five days’ written notice under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 76-1426(1) for [CHI’s] failure to deliver possession of fit 

and habitable premises.” Tenants had been excluded from the 

property for nearly 4 months due to CHI’s refusal to complete 

repairs and inspections necessary to have the property released 

for occupancy by the Housing Division.

CHI failed to return tenants’ “prepaid rent” and security 

deposit following written demand. The property remained 

under an active vacate order as of May 1, 2017, the date tenants filed their amended complaint.

Tenants’ amended complaint alleged causes of action under 

the URLTA. They cited to §§ 76-1426, 76-1419, 76-1430, 

and 76-1439, which corresponded to actions for (1) failure 

to deliver possession, (2) failure to maintain fit premises, (3) 

unlawful ouster, and (4) retaliation. Tenants sought return of 

their security deposit, which is provided for by § 76-1416(2), 
- 748 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

as well as other provisions of the URLTA, damages, and attorney fees.

Motion to Dism

CHI moved to dismiss the complaint under § 6-1112(b)(6) 

for failure to state a claim.

CHI asserted, first, that there was no allegation that possession had not been delivered. Thus, according to CHI, there 

was no breach of the duty set forth in § 76-1418 and the remedies of § 76-1426 do not apply, including the 5-day notice 

to terminate.

Second, CHI asserted that because there was no allegation 

that tenants had delivered a “14/30 day Notice to Cure,” tenants could not make any claim for damages under § 76-1425. 

Nor, according to CHI, did tenants assert any facts showing damages, “because they procured substitute services and 

deducted them from the rent, as provided in Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§76-1427 (1)” or “secured substitute housing and abated the 

payment of rent, the remedy allowed to them under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. §76-1427(2).” CHI asserted that tenants’ allegations that 

they resorted to the remedy of abatement precluded them, 

pursuant to § 76-1427(2), from pursuing damages or attorney fees.

CHI asserted that tenants failed to state claims under 

§ 76-1430 or § 76-1439 for retaliation or ouster, because there 

was no allegation that tenants had either recovered possession 

or lawfully terminated the rental agreement.

At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, CHI submitted, 

without objection, a printout from Nebraska’s online trial court 

case management system, known as JUSTICE, for the court to 

take judicial notice of, which demonstrated that tenants did not 

file a separate action to terminate the lease.

Order of Dismiss

The district court concluded that tenants failed to 

state a claim for breach of the duty to deliver, because 

§§ 76-1418 and 76-1426 did not apply when tenants accepted 
- 749 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

physical possession of the property at the commencement of 

the rental period.

Regarding the alleged failure to maintain fit and habitable 

premises, the court stated that tenants’ failure to allege that 

they had delivered to CHI a “14/30 day Notice to Cure or terminate the lease” prevented their claim. The court also cited to 

the exhibit demonstrating that tenants did not bring a separate 

action to terminate the lease. The court reasoned, further, that 

damages under § 76-1425 were not available for any breach 

of a duty to maintain fit premises, because damages are available under the statute only “when an action for injunctive 

relief has also been brought.” Finally, the court reasoned that 

because tenants resorted to the remedy of abatement pursuant 

to § 76-1427(2), they were precluded from recovering damages 

and attorney fees under § 76-1425(2).

The court concluded that tenants failed to state claims for 

ouster or retaliation under §§ 76-1430 and 76-1439(2), because 

there was no allegation that tenants either recovered possession 

or lawfully terminated the rental agreement.

The court granted CHI’s motion to dismiss. Tenants elected 

to stand on the amended complaint and sought entry of a final 

judgment. The court dismissed the complaint “with / without 

prejudice,” and tenants timely appealed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Tenants assign, summarized, that the district court erred in 

dismissing their complaint.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] An appellate court reviews a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting the allegations in 

the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in 

favor of the nonmoving party.1

1 Eadie v. Leise Properties, 300 Neb. 141, 912 N.W.2d 715 (2018); Burklund 

v. Fuehrer, 299 Neb. 949, 911 N.W.2d 843 (2018).
- 750 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

ANALYSIS

[2] Nebraska is a notice pleading jurisdiction.2 Civil actions 

are controlled by a liberal pleading regime; a party is only 

required to set forth a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and is not required 

to plead legal theories or cite appropriate statutes so long as the 

pleading gives fair notice of the claims asserted.3 The rationale 

for this liberal notice pleading standard in civil actions is that 

when a party has a valid claim, he or she should recover on it 

regardless of a failure to perceive the true basis of the claim at 

the pleading stage.

[3,4] Thus, to prevail against a motion to dismiss for failure 

to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts, accepted 

as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.4

Dismissal under § 6-1112(b)(6) should be granted only in the 

unusual case in which a plaintiff includes allegations that show 

on the face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar 

to relief.5 We review the district court’s determination as to 

whether the plaintiff has stated a claim de novo, accepting as 

true all facts that are well pled and the proper and reasonable 

inferences of law and fact that may be drawn therefrom, but 

not the plaintiff’s conclusions.6

[5] Tenants attempted to enforce at least four different rights 

and obligations set forth by at least four different statutes of the 

URLTA. However, according to CHI, none of the provisions of 

the URLTA allow tenants to recover under the facts pled or the 

proper and reasonable inferences of law and fact that may be 

drawn therefrom. In order to determine whether tenants stated 

a claim under the URLTA, we must determine the meaning of 

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 See id.

5 In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764, 891 N.W.2d 109 (2017).

6 See, Eadie v. Leise Properties, supra note 1; Burklund v. Fuehrer, supra

note 1.
- 751 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

the URLTA statutes independently of the trial court.7 In construing statutes, legislative intention is to be determined from 

a general consideration of a whole act with reference to the 

subject matter to which it applies and the particular topic under 

which the language in question is found, and intent so deduced 

from the whole will prevail over that of a particular part considered separately.8

 The 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.9

The fundamental objective of statutory interpretation is to 

ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent.10 In accordance with the mandate of § 76-1402, we must liberally construe and apply the URLTA to promote its underlying purposes 

and policies to (1) simplify and modernize the law, (2) encourage both the landlord and tenant to maintain and improve the 

quality of housing, and (3) make uniform the law among those 

states that enact it.

While we agree with the district court that tenants failed 

to state a claim for breach of the duty to deliver possession 

under § 76-1418, we hold that tenants stated plausible claims 

for breaches of the duties to put and keep the rental premises 

fit and habitable under § 76-1419, for wrongful ouster under 

§ 76-1430, and retaliatory conduct as described by § 76-1439. 

These correspond to what tenants labeled as their second, 

third, and fourth causes of action. We also hold that the alleged 

facts do not present an insuperable bar to relief in the form 

of return of their security deposit under § 76-1416(2) “[u]pon 

termination of the tenancy . . .” through means not specifically described by the URLTA. Which precise remedies will be 

available to tenants under the URLTA in the event they prove 

7 See Pan v. IOC Realty Specialist, 301 Neb. 256, 918 N.W.2d 273 (2018).

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id.
- 752 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

the alleged breaches of the duties set forth by the URLTA was 

not the proper subject of a motion to dismiss, so long as some 

remedy was available under the statutory scheme. We find no 

merit to CHI’s assertion that tenants lack any remedy under the 

URLTA for the breaches alleged.

Duty to Deliver Posses

We first address the duty under § 76-1418 to deliver possession and its corresponding remedy set forth in § 76-1426. We 

agree with CHI and the district court that these provisions of 

the URLTA do not apply to the facts alleged. The district court 

thus did not err in dismissing tenants’ first cause of action.

Section 76-1418 sets forth a duty of the landlord to deliver 

possession at commencement of the rental term:

At the commencement of the term the landlord shall 

deliver possession of the premises to the tenant in compliance with the rental agreement and section 76-1419. 

The landlord may bring an action for possession against 

any person wrongfully in possession and may recover the 

damages provided in subsection (3) of section 76-1437. If 

the landlord makes reasonable efforts to obtain possession 

of the premises, he shall not be liable for an action under 

this section.

Section 76-1426 describes remedies for a landlord’s failure 

to deliver possession:

If the landlord fails to deliver possession of the dwelling unit to the tenant as provided in section 76-1418, rent 

abates until possession is delivered and the tenant shall:

(1) Upon at least five days’ written notice to the landlord terminate the rental agreement and upon termination 

the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and security; or

(2) Demand performance of the rental agreement by 

the landlord and, if the tenant elects, maintain an action 

for possession of the dwelling unit against any person 

wrongfully in possession or wrongfully withholding possession and recover the damages sustained by him.
- 753 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

If a person’s failure to deliver possession is willful and not in good faith, an aggrieved person may 

recover from that person an amount not more than three 

months’ periodic rent or threefold the actual damages 

sustained by him, whichever is greater, and reasonable 

attorney’s fees.

Tenants argue that the duty to deliver possession under 

§ 76-1426 is a duty to deliver possession to premises that are 

fit and habitable. They point out that § 76-1426 refers to “possession of the dwelling . . . as provided in section 76-1418” 

and that § 76-1418 describes “possession of the premises . . . 

in compliance with . . . section 76-1419,” which describes the 

landlord’s duty to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition. They argue that the allegations stated a claim 

that CHI breached its obligations under § 76-1418 to deliver fit 

and habitable premises.

CHI does not deny that the URLTA requires landlords 

to deliver possession of habitable property, but argues that 

§ 76-1426 pertains only to the commencement of the lease 

without possession and not to some later moment in time 

after tenants have accepted possession. After commencement 

and acceptance of possession, CHI asserts that tenants’ rights 

related to lack of habitability are governed by §§ 76-1419, 

76-1425, and 76-1427.

[6] We agree with CHI. A tenant who accepts possession 

and lives on the property for several months thereafter does not 

have a claim under § 76-1418, because the duties described in 

§ 76-1418 pertain to the “commencement” of the lease term. In 

contrast, the duties set forth in § 76-1419 to comply with minimum housing codes materially affecting health and safety and 

to “put and keep” the premises in a fit and habitable condition 

are not limited under the plain language to conditions arising 

after commencement of the lease term.

For obvious public policy reasons, the URLTA discourages occupancy of premises that are not fit and habitable. 

Accordingly, the modifiers “in compliance with . . . . section 
- 754 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

76-1419” or “as provided in section 76-1418” of “possession” 

are not contained in either the abatement provisions or the 

treble damages provisions of § 76-1426. Instead, § 76-1426 

describes that “rent abates until possession is delivered” and 

nowhere provides the remedy of rent abatement after possession is delivered.

Reading §§ 76-1418 and 76-1426 together and in pari materia with other sections of the URLTA, we conclude that when a 

landlord attempts to deliver uninhabitable premises, § 76-1426 

provides that the tenant may refuse possession and that rent 

abates until possession in compliance with both the rental 

agreement and § 76-1419 is delivered. The tenant who has thus 

refused possession may either terminate the rental agreement 

with 5 days’ notice or demand performance. But a tenant who 

accepts possession and lives in uninhabitable premises does not 

have a claim under § 76-1418 and instead must proceed under 

other provisions of the URLTA.

In this case, tenants alleged that possession of the rental 

property was delivered and that they lived there for approximately 6 months. Under the facts alleged, the remedies provided in §§ 76-1418 and 76-1426 do not apply. Habitability 

issues occurring or discovered during occupancy are addressed 

by §§ 76-1419, 76-1425, and 76-1427. We turn next to 

these statutes.

Duty to Maintain F

Habitable Premis

Section 76-1419 describes the duties of a landlord to keep 

the rental premises fit and habitable. It states in relevant part:

(1) The landlord shall:

(a) Substantially comply, after written or actual notice, 

with the requirements of the applicable minimum housing 

codes materially affecting health and safety;

(b) Make all repairs and do whatever is necessary, after 

written or actual notice, to put and keep the premises in a 

fit and habitable condition;
- 755 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

. . . .

(d) Maintain in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and other facilities and appliances, 

including elevators, supplied or required to be supplied 

by him or her;

. . . .

(f) Supply running water and reasonable amounts of 

hot water at all times . . . .

If there exists a minimum housing code applicable to 

the premises, the landlord’s maximum duty under this 

section shall be determined by subdivision (1)(a) of this 

section. The obligations imposed by this section are not 

intended to change existing tort law in the state.

The facts alleged in tenants’ complaint demonstrate breaches 

of CHI’s duties under § 76-1419. While § 76-1419(1)(a) and 

(b) require “written or actual notice” in order to establish the 

duty under those subsections, tenants alleged both written and 

actual notice of numerous housing code violations “materially 

affecting health and safety”11 and which CHI failed to repair 

so as to “put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable 

condition.”12 Furthermore, tenants alleged that CHI failed to 

maintain plumbing and electrical “in good and safe working 

order and condition,” as required by § 76-1419(d), or supply “running water and reasonable amounts of hot water,” as 

required by § 76-1419(f ). Those provisions do not set forth 

notice as a precondition to those duties.

CHI does not dispute that tenants sufficiently alleged that 

it breached its duties under § 76-1419, but argues that tenants 

have no remedy for the alleged breaches. CHI elaborates that 

tenants elected their statutory remedy under § 76-1427 and that 

they received such remedy in full when they chose to not pay 

rent in December 2016 and January 2017 while they lived with 

11 § 76-1419(1)(a).

12 § 76-1419(1)(b).
- 756 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

relatives. CHI also argues that tenants failed to allege necessary statutory predicates to the remedies set forth in § 76-1425. 

We find no merit to these arguments.

Section 76-1405 provides:

(1) The remedies provided by the [URLTA] shall be 

so administered that the aggrieved party may recover 

appropriate damages. The aggrieved party has a duty to 

mitigate damages.

(2) Any right or obligation declared by the [URLTA] 

is enforceable by action unless the provision declaring it 

specifies a different and limited effect.

Section 76-1425 provides remedies for material noncompliance by the landlord either with the rental agreement or 

with § 76-1419 materially affecting health and safety. Section 

76-1425 states:

(1) Except as provided in the [URLTA], if there is a 

material noncompliance by the landlord with the rental 

agreement or a noncompliance with section 76-1419 

materially affecting health and safety, the tenant may 

deliver a written notice to the landlord specifying the acts 

and omissions constituting the breach and that the rental 

agreement will terminate upon a date not less than thirty 

days after receipt of the notice if the breach is not remedied in fourteen days, and the rental agreement shall terminate as provided in the notice subject to the following. 

If the breach is remediable by repairs or the payment of 

damages or otherwise and the landlord adequately remedies the breach prior to the date specified in the notice, 

the rental agreement will not terminate. If substantially 

the same act or omission which constituted a prior noncompliance of which notice was given recurs within six 

months, the tenant may terminate the rental agreement 

upon at least fourteen days’ written notice specifying the 

breach and the date of termination of the rental agreement. The tenant may not terminate for a condition 

caused by the deliberate or negligent act or omission of 
- 757 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

the tenant, a member of his or her family, or other person 

on the premises with his or her consent.

(2) Except as provided in the [URLTA], the tenant may 

recover damages and obtain injunctive relief for any noncompliance by the landlord with the rental agreement or 

section 76-1419. If the landlord’s noncompliance is willful the tenant may recover reasonable attorney’s fees. If 

the landlord’s noncompliance is caused by conditions or 

circumstances beyond his or her control, the tenant may 

not recover consequential damages, but retains remedies 

provided in section 76-1427.

(3) The remedy provided in subsection (2) of this section is in addition to any right of the tenant arising under 

subsection (1) of this section.

(4) If the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord 

shall return all prepaid rent and security recoverable by 

the tenant under section 76-1416.

However, if the material noncompliance with § 76-1419 

involves the deliberate or negligent failure to supply running 

water, hot water, heat, or essential services, then, alternatively 

to the remedies set forth in § 76-1425, the tenant may proceed 

under § 76-1427. Section 76-1427 states in full:

(1) If contrary to the rental agreement or section 

76-1419 the landlord deliberately or negligently fails to 

supply running water, hot water, or heat, or essential services, the tenant may give written notice to the landlord 

specifying the breach and may:

(a) Procure reasonable amounts of hot water, running 

water, heat and essential services during the period of 

the landlord’s noncompliance and deduct their actual and 

reasonable cost from the rent;

(b) Recover damages based upon the diminution in the 

fair rental value of the dwelling unit; or

(c) Procure reasonable substitute housing during the 

period of the landlord’s noncompliance, in which case 

the tenant is excused from paying rent for the period of 

the landlord’s noncompliance.
- 758 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

In addition to the remedy provided in subdivisions (a) 

and (c), if the failure to supply is deliberate, the tenant 

may recover the actual and reasonable cost or fair and 

reasonable value of the substitute housing not in excess 

of an amount equal to the periodic rent, and in any case 

under this subsection reasonable attorney’s fees.

(2) If the tenant proceeds under this section, he may 

not proceed under section 76-1425 as to that breach.

(3) The rights under this section do not arise until the 

tenant has given written notice to the landlord or if the 

condition was caused by the deliberate or negligent act or 

omission of the tenant, a member of his family, or other 

person on the premises with his consent. This section is 

not intended to cover circumstances beyond the landlord’s control.

CHI is correct that the list of possible remedies in 

§ 76-1427(1)(a), (b), and (c) are listed in the alternative and 

that § 76-1427(2) provides that a tenant who proceeds under 

§ 76-1427 “may not proceed under section 76-1425 as to that 

breach.” But to the extent CHI’s motion to dismiss sufficiently 

asserted the affirmative defense of election of remedies,13 we 

conclude that the doctrine does not support the dismissal of 

tenants’ complaint.

[7] Election of remedies is an ancient doctrine created by the 

courts.14 The doctrine of election of remedies is a somewhat 

vague notion lying somewhere between the areas occupied by 

the doctrines of equitable estoppel and claim preclusion.15 It 

is largely a rule of policy to prevent vexatious litigation.16 It 

requires a plaintiff to choose between inconsistent remedies for 

13 See deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912, 893 N.W.2d 669 

(2017).

14 Porter v. Smith, 240 Neb. 928, 486 N.W.2d 846 (1992).

15 See Bryant Heating v. United States Nat. Bank, 216 Neb. 107, 342 N.W.2d 

191 (1983).

16 Id.
- 759 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

redress of a single injury.17 The basic purpose of the doctrine 

of election of remedies is to prevent a plaintiff from receiving double recovery for a single injury or compensation that 

exceeds the damages sustained.18 It is considered a harsh rule 

which should not be applied in an oppressive manner.19

The doctrine of election of remedies normally does not provide grounds for dismissing a complaint under § 6-1112(b)(6) 

for failure to state a claim. A claim to relief consists of (1) 

a primary right possessed by the plaintiff, (2) a corresponding primary duty devolving upon the defendant, (3) a delict 

or wrong done by the defendant which consisted in a breach 

of such primary right and duty, (4) a remedial right in favor 

of the plaintiff, (5) a remedial duty resting on the defendant 

springing from this delict, and (6) the remedy or relief itself.20

To prevail against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts, accepted as true, 

to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.21 In cases 

in which a plaintiff does not or cannot allege specific facts 

showing a necessary element, the factual allegations, taken as 

true, are nonetheless plausible if they suggest the existence of 

the element and raise a reasonable expectation that discovery 

will reveal evidence of the element or claim.22 While one of 

multiple alleged causes of action may be dismissed for failure 

to state a claim,23 one of multiple remedies pled for a single 

17 Porter v. Smith, supra note 14.

18 See, Genetti v. Caterpillar, Inc., 261 Neb. 98, 621 N.W.2d 529 (2001); 

In re 2007 Appropriations of Niobrara River Waters, 278 Neb. 137, 768 

N.W.2d 420 (2009).

19 Vowers & Sons, Inc. v. Strasheim, 254 Neb. 506, 576 N.W.2d 817 (1998).

20 City of Alliance v. Cover-Jones Motor Co., 154 Neb. 900, 50 N.W.2d 349 

(1951).

21 Peterson v. Kings Gate Partners, 290 Neb. 658, 861 N.W.2d 444 (2015).

22 Id.

23 See, e.g., Zawaideh v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 285 

Neb. 48, 825 N.W.2d 204 (2013).
- 760 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

breach within the context of a single cause of action is not the 

proper subject of dismissal under § 6-1112(b)(6) for failure to 

“state a claim.”

[8,9] It is true that at the pleading stage in a lawsuit, a party 

may be required to elect between two inconsistent theories of 

recovery, such as when rescission of a contract would preclude 

damages for breach of the contract.24 But there was no order 

in this case requiring tenants to elect a theory of recovery.25

Moreover, when the election is between remedies with different elements of proof under the same complaint, we have held 

that a plaintiff can attempt to prove both theories and need 

only elect one for the purpose of recovery in the event that the 

trier of fact finds both theories were proved.26 This is because 

a futile attempt to assert a nonexistent remedy does not, under 

the doctrine of election of remedies, preclude a resort to a legal 

remedy or operate as an estoppel to assert it.27 So long as the 

plaintiff does not ultimately obtain two recoveries for the same 

harm,28 the doctrine of election of remedies does not generally 

prevent the plaintiff from pleading remedies that are mutually exclusive.

CHI nevertheless proposes that tenants’ act of living rent 

free with relatives while not paying rent to CHI was an election of the remedy of abatement under § 76-1427, which tenants have already fully realized, and thus they can no longer 

state any claim for relief. There are several problems with 

this argument.

24 See Platte Valley Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Gray, 226 Neb. 135, 409 

N.W.2d 617 (1987).

25 See Southwest Trinity Constr. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 243 Neb. 55, 497 

N.W.2d 366 (1993).

26 See Genetti v. Caterpillar, Inc., supra note 18. See, also, 28A C.J.S. 

Election of Remedies § 6 (2008).

27 Russo v. Williams, 160 Neb. 564, 71 N.W.2d 131 (1955).

28 See Stephen S. Ashley, Bad Faith Actions Liability & Damages § 7:17 (2d 

ed. 2018), Westlaw (database updated Sept. 2018).
- 761 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

First, pursuing a remedy is an irrevocable election only if 

pursued to a determinative and advantageous conclusion to 

the irreparable injury of the other party.29 Even commencing 

suit for one remedy has been held not to be a manifestation of the plaintiff’s choice of that remedy, “‘so long as the 

defendant has not so altered his position as to make it unjust 

to permit the change.’”30 Tenants’ act of finding suitable housing from November 18, 2016, until March 12, 2017, when 

the Housing Division would not allow anyone to occupy the 

rental property, and not paying rent during that time, was not 

an irrevocable election of the remedy of abatement under 

§ 76-1427(1)(c).

Nor is it true that under the alleged facts, the remedies 

provided under § 76-1427 were fully realized. Section 

76-1427(1)(c) expressly states that tenants are “excused 

from paying rent for the period of the landlord’s noncompliance.” Yet, CHI allegedly demanded that tenants pay rent 

for November 2016 and February 2017, and tenants alleged 

that they did so, even though during approximately one-half 

of November and nearly all of February, they were living in 

substitute housing. CHI fails to explain how tenants have no 

right to enforce the provision in § 76-1427(1)(c) that they be 

excused from paying rent while living in substitute housing 

and while CHI deliberately or negligently failed to supply running water, hot water, heat, or essential services. CHI also fails 

to explain why tenants did not sufficiently allege facts showing 

that they could recover reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 

§ 76-1427(1).

[10] Furthermore, tenants’ complaint alleges more than one 

breach and more than one injury with respect to the duties set 

forth by § 76-1419. Election of remedies applies only when 

there are inconsistent remedies for redress of the same single 

29 See Porter v. Smith, supra note 14. See, also, Bratt v. Wishart, 136 Neb. 

899, 287 N.W. 769 (1939).

30 Bratt v. Wishart, supra note 29, 136 Neb. at 904, 287 N.W. at 771.
- 762 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

injury.31 Likewise, § 76-1427(2) states that resort to the remedies of § 76-1427 precludes proceeding under § 76-1425 “as 

to that breach.” (Emphasis supplied.) Before tenants were 

allegedly forced to vacate the premises because of a major 

electrical hazard and other code violations, they allegedly lived 

for approximately 6 months with water leaks and mold. The 

mold exposure allegedly caused medical complications for tenants’ child. The allegations indicate that tenants notified CHI 

of the problem, as did the Douglas County Health Department. 

Tenants did not seek alternative suitable housing during that 

time. Instead, they paid full rent and otherwise did not exercise 

any of the remedies set forth in § 76-1427.

In fact, as to the water leak and mold, such noncompliance 

with § 76-1419 was not a failure to supply “running water, hot 

water, or heat, or essential services,” such that § 76-1427(1) 

could even apply. Therefore, as to CHI’s failure to correct the 

water leak and mold, tenants do not have a choice between 

§§ 76-1427 and 76-1425, which could lead to an election of 

remedies. Instead, they are limited to § 76-1425.

And we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that 

the complaint presented an insuperable bar to any relief under 

§ 76-1425. First, tenants’ failure to provide CHI with a “14/30 

day Notice” of termination does not preclude all relief under 

§ 76-1425.

The underlying conclusion regarding the lack of a 14/30-

day notice appears to have been that tenants cannot recover 

their security deposit pursuant to § 76-1416 if the lease was 

not terminated under the URLTA. We pause to note that while 

tenants did not allege facts constituting a 14/30-day notice, 

“termination of the tenancy” referred to in § 76-1416(2) 

can occur in many ways other than the process described 

by § 76-1425. For instance, a tenant who claims a breach of 

§ 76-1419, but cannot show termination through a 14/30-day 

31 See, Porter v. Smith, supra note 14. See, also, deNourie & Yost Homes v. 

Frost, supra note 13.
- 763 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

notice, can nevertheless recover the security deposit once the 

term of the lease has expired, so long as the security deposit 

has not been forfeited.

In any event, there are other remedies provided by 

§ 76-1425 which do not require a 14/30-day notice. Section 

76-1425(2) provides that “the tenant may recover damages 

. . . for any noncompliance by the landlord with the rental 

agreement or section 76-1419.” Further, “If the landlord’s 

noncompliance is willful the tenant may recover reasonable 

attorney’s fees.”32 Under the plain language of the statute, 

these remedies are “in addition to any right of the tenant arising under subsection (1).”33 To the extent the district court 

reasoned that a 14/30-day notice is a prerequisite to damages or attorney fees under § 76-1427(2), it erred. Nothing 

in subsection (2) indicates that the particular notice described 

in subsection (1) is a prerequisite for the relief described in 

subsection (2).

[11] Interpreting § 76-1425(2) as requiring a 14/30-day 

notice as a prerequisite to damages and attorney fees is not 

only inconsistent with the plain language of § 76-1425(2), 

which does not require a 14/30-day notice, but also with 

§ 76-1419, which requires written or actual notice before a 

landlord has a duty to comply with applicable minimum housing codes materially affecting health and safety or to make 

all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the 

premises in a fit and habitable condition. It would be a strained 

reading of the statutory scheme to imply that, in addition to the 

written or actual notice under § 76-1419, a tenant must give a 

14/30-day notice—not just to terminate the lease, but also to 

have a right to damages and attorney fees under § 76-1425(2). 

We hold that so long as a tenant has given notice when required 

by § 76-1419, a tenant can seek damages or injunctive relief 

under § 76-1425(2) without sending notice under § 76-1425(1) 

32 § 76-1425(2).

33 § 76-1425(3).
- 764 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

specifying that the rental agreement will terminate upon a date 

not less than 30 days after receipt of the notice of the breach, 

if not remedied within 14 days.

[12] We also conclude that the district court erred in reading § 76-1425(2) as providing the remedy of damages only 

if the tenant also seeks injunctive relief. Section 76-1425(2) 

states in relevant part that “the tenant may recover damages 

and obtain injunctive relief for any noncompliance.” While 

the district court was correct that “and” is a conjunction and 

its function is to indicate a connection or addition34 between 

“damages” and “injunctive relief,” it does not follow that the 

tenant must choose to pursue both in order to pursue one. 

Rather, we agree with tenants that the conjunctive “and” in 

§ 76-1425(2) “serves to vest a tenant with two distinct options 

for relief” and does not require that both be pursued in order 

to pursue either.35

At most, the meaning of § 76-1425(2) in this regard is 

ambiguous. In construing a statute, an appellate court will, 

if possible, try to avoid a construction which would lead to 

absurd, unconscionable, or unjust results.36 Neither CHI nor 

the lower court has explained how it would be just to require 

tenants to obtain injunctive relief in order to recover damages 

when a landlord breaches the duties set forth in § 76-1419 

relating to fitness and habitability. We can envision situations 

where damages have been incurred but where, for example, injunctive relief is moot by the time a tenant brings an 

action under the URLTA. To interpret a tenant’s right to damages under § 76-1425(2) as contingent upon injunctive relief 

and injunctive relief as contingent upon an award of damages would allow landlords to fortuitously escape liability for 

breaches of § 76-1419. Such a reading would thus be contrary 

34 See “And,” Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/

dictionary/and (last visited Mar. 27, 2019).

35 Brief for appellants at 17.

36 In re Estate of Eickmeyer, 262 Neb. 17, 628 N.W.2d 246 (2001).
- 765 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

to the purpose of the URLTA to encourage the landlord to 

maintain and improve the quality of housing.

We find that the complaint presents no insuperable bar to 

relief for any of the claimed breaches of the duties set forth by 

§ 76-1419.

Retaliati

We turn to tenants’ cause of action for retaliation under 

§ 76-1439. The complaint alleged that the rental property is 

still under a vacate order and that CHI, in retaliation for tenants’ complaints to the Douglas County Health Department 

and the Housing Division, demanded tenants vacate or pay 

rent during periods they were unable to live on the premises. 

We hold that tenants thereby alleged sufficient facts to state a 

cause of action for retaliation under § 76-1439.

Section 76-1439 provides:

(1) Except as provided in this section, a landlord may 

not retaliate by increasing rent or decreasing services or 

by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession after:

(a) The tenant has complained to a government agency 

charged with responsibility for enforcement of a minimum building or housing code of a violation applicable 

to the premises materially affecting health and safety[.]

. . . .

(2) If the landlord acts in violation of subsection (1), 

the tenant is entitled to the remedies provided in section 

76-1430 and has a defense in action against him for possession . . . .

(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a landlord 

may bring an action for possession if:

(a) The violation of the applicable minimum building 

or housing code was caused primarily by lack of reasonable care by the tenant or other person in his household or 

upon the premises with his consent;

(b) The tenant is in default in rent; or
- 766 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

(c) Compliance with the applicable minimum building 

or housing code requires alteration, remodeling, or demolition which would effectively deprive the tenant of use 

of the dwelling unit.

The maintenance of the action does not release the 

landlord from liability under subsection (2) of section 

76-1425.

Section 76-1430, referred to by § 76-1439, describes that

the tenant may recover possession or terminate the rental 

agreement and, in either case, recover an amount equal 

to three months’ periodic rent as liquidated damages, and 

a reasonable attorney’s fee. If the rental agreement is 

terminated the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and 

security recoverable under section 76-1416.

[13] Nothing in these sections requires a specific notice of 

termination of a rental agreement. CHI argues, and the district 

court seemed to believe, that termination under § 76-1439 cannot be recognized without a separate action for termination. It 

was undisputed that tenants did not recover possession. Neither 

§§ 76-1430 and 76-1439 nor any other provision of the URLTA 

indicates that a separate action for termination of a rental 

agreement is a prerequisite to termination under the URLTA. 

The only reference to maintenance of an action in the URLTA 

is the reference to an action for possession by the landlord 

against a tenant wrongfully in possession or by a tenant against 

another party wrongfully in possession.37

Other than setting forth the right to terminate a rental 

agreement under various sections already discussed and providing in § 76-1405(2) that “[a]ny right or obligation declared 

by the [URLTA] is enforceable by action unless the provision declaring it specifies a different and limited effect,” the 

URLTA nowhere refers to an “action” for termination. Indeed, 

we have never recognized a separate cause of action for termination of a rental agreement, as such. To the contrary, in 

37 See § 76-1439.
- 767 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

the context of determining when the statute of limitations 

begins to run for actions for possession, we have referred to 

termination of a lease as arising as a factual matter pursuant 

to the provisions of the URLTA before any action has been 

brought.38 Similarly, under common law, leases terminated 

automatically upon various defaults under self-executing contractual provisions without any action being required by lessor 

or lessee.39 Statutes that effect a change in common law or 

take away a common-law right should be strictly construed, 

and a construction that restricts or removes a common-law 

right should not be adopted unless the plain words of the statute compel it.40

Tenants’ complaint does not present an insuperable bar to 

relief under § 76-1439. Therefore, the district court erred in 

dismissing tenants’ alleged fourth cause of action.

Ouste

Finally, we find that the district court erred in concluding 

that tenants failed to state a claim for ouster in violation of 

§ 76-1430. Section 76-1430 provides in relevant part that a 

tenant may take action “[i]f the landlord unlawfully removes 

or excludes the tenant from the premises or willfully and 

wrongfully diminishes services to the tenant by interrupting 

or causing the interruption of electric, gas, water or other 

essential service to the tenant . . . .” The allegations indicate 

that water services were interrupted as a result of plumbing 

repairs which were in progress. Tenants also alleged that CHI 

had unlawfully told them to vacate in October 2016 in retaliation for their reports to the Housing Division. These allegations do not demonstrate an insuperable bar to relief under 

§ 76-1430.

38 See Blankenau v. Landess, 261 Neb. 906, 626 N.W.2d 588 (2001). See, 

also, Pollock v. Whipple, 33 Neb. 752, 51 N.W. 130 (1892).

39 See Valentine Oil Co. v. Powers, 157 Neb. 71, 59 N.W.2d 150 (1953).

40 See Tadros v. City of Omaha, 273 Neb. 935, 735 N.W.2d 377 (2007).
- 768 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

VASQUEZ v. CHI PROPERTIES

Cite as 302 Neb. 742

CONCLUSION

Accepting as true all facts that are well pled and the proper 

and reasonable inferences of law and fact that may be drawn 

therefrom, the complaint states plausible claims for relief under 

§§ 76-1419, 76-1430, and 76-1439 of the URLTA for retaliatory conduct, ouster, and failure to maintain fit and habitable 

premises, but not under §§ 76-1418 and 76-1426 for failure to 

deliver possession. We affirm the district court’s order of dismissal as to tenants’ first cause of action, but reverse as to their 

alleged second, third, and fourth causes of action.

Affirmed in part, and in part rever