- 354 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

J. Mark Dunbar, appellant, v. Twin Towers

Condominium Association, Inc., a Nebraska

nonprofit corporation, et al., appellees

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed September 25, 2018. No. A-17-682.

1. Appeal and Error. To be considered by an appellate court, an alleged 

error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the 

brief of the party asserting the error.

2. Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error. Neb. Ct. R. App. P. 

§ 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014) requires that a cross-appeal be prepared in 

the same manner and under the same rules as the brief of the appellant. 

Thus, the cross-appeal section must set forth a separate title page, a table 

of contents, a statement of the case, assigned errors, propositions of law, 

and a statement of facts.

3. ____: ____. In order for affirmative relief to be obtained, a cross-appeal 

must be properly designated in accordance with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. 

§ 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014).

4. Statutes: Appeal and Error. The meaning of a statute is a question of 

law, and a reviewing court is obligated to reach conclusions independent 

of the determination made below.

5. Summary Judgment: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. When reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, an appellate court acquires 

jurisdiction over both motions and may determine the controversy that 

is the subject of those motions; an appellate court may also specify the 

issues as to which questions of fact remain and direct further proceedings as the court deems necessary.

6. Statutes. To the extent that there is conflict between two statutes on the 

same subject, the specific statute controls over the general statute.

7. Statutes: Appeal and Error. 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.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

10/02/2018 12:24 AM CDT
- 355 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

8. Statutes. It is not within the province of the courts to read a meaning 

into a statute that is not there or to read anything direct and plain out of 

a statute.

9. Actions: Moot Question. An action becomes moot when the issues 

initially presented in the proceedings no longer exist or the parties lack 

a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action.

10. Moot Question: Words and Phrases. A moot case is one which seeks 

to determine a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or 

rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no longer alive.

11. Moot Question. Mootness refers to events occurring after the filing of 

a suit which eradicate the requisite personal interest in the resolution of 

the dispute that existed at the beginning of the litigation.

12. Moot Question: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Although mootness 

does not prevent appellate jurisdiction, it is a justiciability doctrine that 

can prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction.

13. Declaratory Judgments: Moot Question. A declaratory judgment 

action becomes moot when the issues initially presented in the proceedings no longer exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in 

the outcome of the action.

14. Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings 

and evidence admitted at the hearing disclose that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may 

be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Shelly

R. Stratman, Judge. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and 

remanded with directions.

J. Mark Dunbar, pro se.

Dennis P. Lee, of Lee Law Office, for appellee Twin Towers 

Condominium Association, Inc.

Pirtle, Riedmann, and Bishop, Judges.

Bishop, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

J. Mark Dunbar, a condominium unit owner, brought an 

action against Twin Towers Condominium Association, Inc. 

(Association); LRC Management II LLC; and anonymous 
- 356 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

defendants “Does 1-10.” Dunbar was seeking relief related to 

actions taken by the Association. The issues on appeal involve 

only Dunbar and the Association. Summary judgment motions 

and orders filed prior to trial disposed of some of Dunbar’s 

claims, but not all of them. Dunbar appeals and the Association 

attempts to cross-appeal from the order entered by the Douglas 

County District Court following trial. Dunbar challenges the 

district court’s conclusion that a pet policy amendment to 

the Association’s master deed was valid. Dunbar also challenges the district court’s conclusion that the Association’s 

adopted resolution regarding an owner’s access to records and 

its procedures for making records available were consistent 

with nonprofit corporation laws and condominium laws. The 

Association’s attempted cross-appeal is related to attorney fees. 

We affirm in part and in part reverse the district court’s decision and remand the cause with directions.

II. BACKGROUND

The “Twin Towers Condominium” was established by a 

master deed recorded on December 30, 1983, and consists of 

residential units, commercial units, and parking areas. The 

master deed provides that the Association, a Nebraska nonprofit 

corporation, was incorporated “to provide a vehicle for the 

management of the condominium” and that each “co-owner” of 

a condominium unit is automatically deemed a member of the 

Association. Dunbar purchased a residential unit in 2003 and is 

therefore a member. According to the Association’s bylaws, a 

board of not fewer than three nor more than five administrators 

or directors (elected by the members annually) manages the 

affairs of the Association.

Since February 2010, Blackthorne Real Estate Property 

Development Company, Inc. (Blackthorne), has provided property management for the Association and is the Association’s 

registered agent. David Davis, Blackthorne’s president, testified that Blackthorne, as property manager for the Association, 

“handle[s] the day-to-day operations of the property,” including 
- 357 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

maintenance, collection of dues and special assessments, payment of vendor bills, negotiation of contracts with vendors, 

and “the day-to-day contact with unit owners and the Board.” 

Blackthorne is the custodian of the Association’s documents, 

and it prepares a budget and provides reports to the Association 

regarding the Association’s financial affairs. Davis also attends 

board meetings, and his company, Blackthorne, staffs an office 

located in the Twin Towers Condominium. There is a computer 

in that office made available to owners, where they can view 

financial documents, the master deed, some correspondence, 

and minutes from meetings.

Dunbar, formerly a licensed architect in Texas and currently 

an attorney still active with the California bar, testified at trial 

that if the Association “should mismanage its expenses or 

should overpay vendors, it is owners like [him] who are forced 

to pay.” Or if the Association decides to invest “hundreds of 

thousands or millions of dollars on capital improvements, the 

Association is able to assess [Dunbar] and force [him] on a 

personal basis to pay those expenses.” Therefore, the right 

to examine documents is the only way Dunbar can determine 

why he is incurring “monthly dues assessments.” He claims 

to have suffered damages as a result of the Association’s 

mismanagement of its income, repairs, and capital improvements. As examples, he described his share of assessments 

he had to pay in 2011 ($3,000 for a parking garage renovation), 2013 ($1,200 for “chiller repair”), and 2014 ($5,000 for 

elevator and roof repairs). These assessments are in addition 

to “ordinary monthly or annual expenses” paid by owners 

for services such as property management, are in addition to 

utilities, and are “extraordinary, largely unexpected, unanticipated burdens on property owners such as [Dunbar].” Dunbar 

initially opened up a dialogue with his “fellow unit owners” 

through “telephone conversations, meetings and . . . a website 

[he] created” to assemble documents for the owners to “figure 

out what was happening to [the owners’] property investment.” He then “took the formal steps necessary to force an 
- 358 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

examination of the Association’s records in order that [he] 

might be more fully informed about the nature of the income 

and expenses that the Association was handling for [him] and 

[his] fellow owners.”

Dunbar requested and received documents in March 2014. 

According to an Association officer, “23 sets of various documents” were sent to Dunbar at that time. Dunbar proceeded to 

publish those documents on his personal website; the officer 

claimed some of the documents included vendor contracts 

which contained confidential information. A year later, on 

March 10, 2015, Dunbar sent a letter to the Association again 

requesting financial records. On April 14, the Association’s 

board passed a “Resolution on Documents Provided on Request 

of an Owner” (resolution). According to Davis, the resolution 

was drawn up because Dunbar previously posted documents on 

his website. The resolution stated the board “desires to adopt 

a uniform policy and procedure to respond to such owner 

requests for Association records and documents.” The resolution also stated, in part:

3: In responding to a request of an Owner for any financial records or financial information the [Association] 

other than the annual budget [sic], pursuant to Neb. Rev. 

Stat. section 21-19,166 (c), may make a policy decision 

on providing such documents to the requesting owner if:

A: The [Association] determines that the owner’s 

demand is made in good faith and for a proper purpose;

B: In the written request the owner describes with 

reasonable particularity the purpose and the copies of the 

records the member desires; and

[C]: The records are directly connected with such purpose as described by the owner.

4: Any request made by an owner for documents shall 

be referred to the . . . Board . . . for review and action. 

The Board may consider such request at its next . . . 

meeting. In the event the Board determines to produce 

any or all of the documents requested by the owner such 
- 359 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

documents shall be provided to the owner within five (5) 

days of the decision of the Board related to such document request and the Board’s determination required by 

Neb. Rev. Stat[.] section 21-19,166 (c).

Also, after the adoption of the resolution, the board decided 

to create a website for the owners, which is managed by 

Blackthorne. Davis indicated that the board directed him to 

place on that website all financial documents, board meeting 

minutes, and other pertinent documents, such as the master 

deed, bylaws, and amendments. Email communications and 

announcements for elections and social events are posted on 

the website as well. Any document marked with “PDF” is 

a protected file that can be opened by an owner registered 

on the board’s Twin Towers Condominium website, but the 

protected files cannot be copied. The financial records are all 

marked as protected files.

The Association sent a letter to Dunbar on April 20, 2015, 

which, in relevant part, purported it would provide him with 

copies of the documents he requested. Davis sent Dunbar six 

emails attaching various documents on April 25, but according to Dunbar, not a single document was responsive to 

Dunbar’s requests. On November 16, Dunbar sent another letter again requesting various financial records. The Association 

sent a letter on November 20 informing Dunbar that the 

board voted to deny his request for documents. It explained 

that his request was denied because Dunbar received documents in March 2014 and posted documents on his personal 

Twin Towers Condominium website. The Association stated 

that this violated confidentiality provisions on some of the 

documents and exposed the Association “to potential claims 

of financial liability for disclosure of confidential proprietary information and breach of fiduciary duty.” The letter 

also stated:

[B]ased on Neb. Rev. Stat. section 21-19,166(c)(1) and 

21-19,166(c)(3) the Board hereby denies your document 

request and finds that
- 360 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

(1) your demand is not “made in good faith and for a 

proper purpose”, and

(2) . . . the records you have requested are not “directly 

connected with this purpose.”

(Emphasis in original.)

On March 1, 2016, Dunbar filed a lawsuit related to a 

number of actions taken by the Association. Both Dunbar 

and the Association filed motions for summary judgment; 

each obtained some relief, but several claims remained undecided. The Association subsequently filed another summary 

judgment motion, and Dunbar filed a motion for reconsideration. Following another hearing, the Association was successful in getting one more claim resolved in its favor, but 

three claims still remained. Trial on the remaining claims 

took place on May 15, 2017. At the onset of trial, the parties 

reached an agreement and stipulated to an issue regarding 

the basic values for the condominium units. This left for trial 

only the claims related to Dunbar’s request for access to and 

the right to copy Association records, and the Association’s 

resolution regarding access to records. On June 2, the district court entered an order dismissing Dunbar’s remaining claims. Dunbar appeals, and the Association attempts to 

cross-appeal.

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Dunbar assigns, consolidated and restated, that the district court erred by (1) failing to find that the Association’s 

resolution limiting document inspection by unit owners was 

in conflict with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-876 (Reissue 2009) 

and thereby erroneously denying Dunbar’s request to examine 

“‘all’” records, (2) holding that the statutory right to examine 

records under § 76-876 does not include the right to copy those 

records, and (3) failing to find that the purported amendment 

to the master deed regarding pets was invalid.

[1] Although Dunbar assigns error and sets forth facts 

related to the parties’ stipulation regarding basic values for 
- 361 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

the condominium units, he does not specifically argue this 

error. Accordingly, we will not address it. To be considered 

by an appellate court, an alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party 

asserting the error. Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76, 907 

N.W.2d 275 (2018).

[2,3] In its attempted cross-appeal, the Association appears 

to be claiming the district court erred by failing to award it 

attorney fees pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-824 (Reissue 

2016), which permits such fees when a court determines an 

action was frivolous. However, the Association’s brief does 

not comply with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014), 

which requires that a cross-appeal be prepared “in the same 

manner and under the same rules as the brief of appellant.” 

“Thus, the cross-appeal section must set forth a separate title 

page, a table of contents, a statement of the case, assigned 

errors, propositions of law, and a statement of facts.” Friedman 

v. Friedman, 290 Neb. 973, 984, 863 N.W.2d 153, 162 (2015). 

In order for affirmative relief to be obtained, a cross-appeal 

must be properly designated in accordance with § 2-109(D)(4). 

See Bacon v. DBI/SALA, 284 Neb. 579, 822 N.W.2d 14 (2012). 

We therefore do not address the Association’s attempted 

cross-appeal.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[4] The meaning of a statute is a question of law, and a 

reviewing court is obligated to reach conclusions independent 

of the determination made below. In re Application of City of 

Neligh, 299 Neb. 517, 909 N.W.2d 73 (2018).

[5] When reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, 

an appellate court acquires jurisdiction over both motions and 

may determine the controversy that is the subject of those 

motions; an appellate court may also specify the issues as to 

which questions of fact remain and direct further proceedings 

as the court deems necessary. Johnson v. Nelson, 290 Neb. 703, 

861 N.W.2d 705 (2015).
- 362 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

V. ANALYSIS

1. Association’s Resolution Limiting

Access to Documents

The Association’s resolution at issue incorporates some language from condominium statutes and nonprofit corporation 

statutes; the resolution limited an owner’s access to certain 

Association records and, other than the annual budget, made 

discretionary to the board the decision to produce financial 

records and certain written communications. Dunbar claims 

the district court erred by failing to find that the resolution 

conflicts with § 76-876, which is a statute specific to condominiums and an owner’s access to records. He asserts that 

the nonprofit corporation statutes are of “general application” 

in this case, that the statutes controlling condominiums are 

“more specific,” and that therefore, to the extent they are in 

conflict, the “qualified right” provided by the nonprofit laws 

must yield to the “unqualified right” of the condominium laws 

to inspect all records of the Association. Brief for appellant at 

23 (emphasis in original). On the other hand, the Association 

argues that the adoption of the resolution was lawful and is 

consistent with the condominium laws and the nonprofit corporation laws.

Accordingly, we next examine the relevant statutes for condominiums and nonprofit corporations as pertinent to Dunbar’s 

request for access to and copies of Association records.

(a) Statutory Background Specific 

to Condominiums

Nebraska has two condominium acts: the Condominium 

Property Act (CPA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 76-801 to 76-823 

(Reissue 2009), and the Nebraska Condominium Act (NCA), 

Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 76-825 to 76-894 (Reissue 2009 & Cum. 

Supp. 2016). See Twin Towers Condo. Assn. v. Bel Fury Invest. 

Group, 290 Neb. 329, 860 N.W.2d 147 (2015). Generally, the 

CPA governs condominium regimes created under a “master deed” before 1984, and the NCA governs those created 
- 363 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

under a “declaration” on or after January 1, 1984. See Twin 

Towers Condo. Assn. v. Bel Fury Invest. Group, 290 Neb. at 

336, 860 N.W.2d at 155. As noted earlier, the Twin Towers 

Condominium was established by a master deed recorded on 

December 30, 1983; therefore, the CPA is applicable and, as 

will be discussed, certain statutes under the NCA are also 

applicable.

Both sets of condominium laws provide for the examination 

of records. Section 76-816 under the CPA (pre-1984) states, in 

relevant part:

The board of administrators . . . shall keep or cause 

to be kept a book with a detailed account, in chronological order, of the receipts and expenditures affecting 

the condominium property regime and its administration 

and specifying the maintenance and repair expenses of 

the common elements and all other expenses incurred. 

Both the book and the vouchers accrediting the entries 

made thereupon shall be available for examination by 

any co-owner or any prospective purchaser at convenient 

hours on working days that shall be set and announced 

for general knowledge. . . . For condominiums created 

in this state before January 1, 1984, the provision on the 

records of the administrative body or association in section 76-876 shall apply to the extent necessary in construing the provisions of [§] 76-876 . . . which apply to events 

and circumstances which occur after January 1, 1984.

Section 76-876 of the NCA (effective 1984) states: “The 

association shall keep financial records sufficiently detailed 

to enable the association to comply with section 76-884. All 

financial and other records of the association shall be made 

reasonably available for examination by any unit owner and his 

or her authorized agents.”

Section 76-884, which pertains to the resale of a condominium unit, states in relevant part:

(a) Except in the case of a sale where delivery of a 

public-offering statement is required . . . the unit owner 
- 364 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

and any other person in the business of selling real estate 

who offers a unit to a purchaser shall furnish to a purchaser before conveyance a copy of the declaration other 

than the plats and plans, the bylaws, the rules or regulations of the association, and the following information:

(1) a statement setting forth the amount of the monthly 

common expense assessment and any unpaid common 

expense or special assessment currently due and payable 

from the selling unit owner;

(2) any other fees payable by unit owners;

(3) the most recent regularly prepared balance sheet and 

income and expense statement, if any, of the association;

(4) the current operating budget of the association, 

if any;

(5) a statement that a copy of any insurance policy 

provided for the benefit of unit owners is available . . . 

upon request; and

(6) a statement of the remaining term of any leasehold 

estate affecting the condominium . . . .

(b) The association, within ten days after a request 

by a unit owner, shall furnish in writing the information necessary to enable the unit owner to comply with 

this section.

Importantly, § 76-826(a) of the NCA states that certain sections of the NCA shall apply, to the extent necessary to construe that section, to all condominiums created before January 

1, 1984, “but those sections apply only with respect to events 

and circumstances occurring after January 1, 1984, and do not 

invalidate existing provisions of the master deed, bylaws, or 

plans of those condominiums.” Section 76-826(a) identifies 

§§ 76-876 and 76-884 as being applicable to all condominiums created before 1984 for events and circumstances occurring after January 1, 1984.

Therefore, we will consider both §§ 76-876 and 76-884 in 

determining Dunbar’s rights to access and copy Association 

records. Neither Dunbar nor the Association contends that the 
- 365 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

master deed or bylaws contain any language which should 

govern the outcome of the records issue raised, so our review 

focuses on the language of the statutes. We have provided 

the relevant condominium statutes above; however, since the 

Association has also relied on Nebraska’s nonprofit corporation 

laws to support its position, we set forth those relevant statutory provisions next.

(b) Nonprofit Corporation Statutes 

Related to Records

The Association claims that because it is incorporated under 

the Nebraska Nonprofit Corporation Act, see Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 21-1901 et seq. (Reissue 2012 & Supp. 2017), the records 

issue is governed by both Nebraska’s nonprofit corporation 

statutes and the condominium statutes. As relevant here, the 

nonprofit corporation statutes require such corporations to 

maintain certain corporate records as set forth in § 21-19,165(a) 

through (e). Interestingly, § 21-19,165(a) requires a corporation 

to keep permanent records of minutes of all meetings of its 

members and board of directors, of all actions taken by members or directors without a meeting, and of all actions taken 

by committees of the board. Despite that requirement, we note 

that the Association’s resolution indicates that it will provide 

minutes of any meeting “if maintained.” However, maintaining 

permanent records of minutes of all meetings is not discretionary under the nonprofit statutes.

Section 21-19,165(b) requires the corporation to maintain 

appropriate accounting records. Section 21-19,165(e) requires 

the corporation to keep a copy of the following records at its 

principal office: articles of incorporation and all amendments 

currently in effect; bylaws and all amendments currently in 

effect; resolutions adopted by the board of directors related to 

characteristics, qualifications, rights, limitations, and obligations of members; minutes of all meetings of members; records 

of all actions approved by the members for the past 3 years; 

all written communications to members generally within the 
- 366 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

past 3 years, including financial statements furnished under 

§ 21-19,170; a list of names and addresses of current directors 

and officers; and its most recent biennial report delivered to the 

Secretary of State.

With regard to access to and copying of corporation records, 

we note the following statutory requirements: Other than an 

exception provided for a religious corporation, and subject to 

the requesting member being charged for costs, § 21-19,166(a) 

provides, in relevant part, that upon 5 days’ written notice or 

written demand, “a member is entitled to inspect and copy, 

at a reasonable time and location specified by the corporation, any of the records of the corporation described” in 

§ 21-19,165(e) (which we have identified in the preceding 

paragraph). Notably, that also includes all financial statements 

described in § 21-19,170, which provides for a corporation to 

furnish a member with its latest financial statements, including 

a balance sheet as of the end of the fiscal year and a statement 

of operation for that year. The documents referred to under 

§ 21-19,166(a) are not subject to the requirements set forth 

under § 21-19,166(c), as discussed next.

Section 21-19,166(b) permits a member to inspect and copy 

additional records if the member meets the requirements of 

§ 21-19,166(c). Again, other than an exception provided for 

a religious corporation, and subject to the requesting member 

being charged for costs, upon 5 days’ written notice to the corporation, § 21-19,166(b) provides for the inspection and copying of the following: “(1) Excerpts from any records required 

to be maintained under subsection (a) of section 21-19,165, 

to the extent not subject to inspection under subsection (a) of 

this section; (2) Accounting records of the corporation; and 

(3) Subject to section 21-19,169, the membership list.” The 

records described above in § 21-19,166(b) are in addition to 

those referred to in § 21-19,166(a) (which refers to the records 

identified in § 21-19,165(e)). Therefore, it is only the additional records under § 21-19,166(b) which are subject to the 

requirements set forth in § 21-19,166(c). Section 21-19,166(c) 
- 367 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

states that a member may inspect and copy the records identified in subsection (b) only if “(1) [t]he member’s demand is 

made in good faith and for a proper purpose; (2) [t]he member 

describes with reasonable particularity the purpose and the 

records the member desires to inspect; and (3) [t]he records are 

directly connected with this purpose.” The resolution passed by 

the board in the present case made the requirements described 

in § 21-19,166(c) applicable to “any financial records or financial information” requested by an owner, except for “the annual 

budget.” This is not consistent with § 21-19,166(a), which permits a member to inspect and copy, without conditions, those 

records described in § 21-19,165(e), which include financial 

statements that include a balance sheet as of the end of the 

fiscal year and a statement of operations for that year. See 

§§ 21-19,165(e)(5) and 21-19,170(a). Accordingly, the board’s 

resolution incorporating the language of § 21-19,166(c) and 

making it applicable to all financial records requested (other 

than the annual budget) is not consistent with the nonprofit 

corporation statutes.

(c) District Court’s Decisions

In addition to the nonprofit corporation statutes, the 

Association relied upon § 76-884 (information required for 

resale of a condominium unit) to support its position that the 

resolution was appropriate and that Dunbar had been provided 

all documents required under the law. Dunbar argued that 

the documents listed in § 76-884 were a minimum records 

requirement for the association and that § 76-876 required 

all financial and other records of the association to be made 

reasonably available for examination by any unit owner. In a 

summary judgment order entered August 31, 2016, the district 

court concluded that § 76-884 was not the controlling statute, stating:

The two statu[t]es are plainly distinctive. As stated 

above, § 76-884 places a duty on the condominium 

owner to furnish the pr[e]scribed records to a prospective 
- 368 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

buyer. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-876 is more expansive and 

places a duty on the condominium association to maintain records and make them reasonably available to condominium owners.

The court then set forth the entirety of § 76-876 and pointed 

out that the statute is “two sentences long.” The court noted 

that the first sentence required the Association to keep records 

sufficiently detailed to enable the Association to comply with 

§ 76-884 and that “[i]f the records specifically enumerated 

in § 76-884 were the only records that § 76-876 required the 

[A]ssociation to make available to owners, then the statu[t]e 

would end after the first sentence.” The court emphasized the 

language in the second sentence of § 76-876, which says, “All 

financial and other records of the association shall be made 

reasonably available for examination by any unit owner . . . .” 

We agree with the district court that § 76-884 does not govern 

which records a condominium owner has the right to access 

and that the second sentence contained in § 76-876 provides 

the controlling language.

The district court went on to find that there were genuine 

issues of material fact regarding the Association’s compliance 

with the condominium laws and therefore denied summary 

judgment on the issues related to the resolution and access to 

records. Following trial, however, the court dismissed Dunbar’s 

remaining claims. In its order entered June 2, 2017, the court 

stated, in relevant part:

In applying the law associated with both non-profit 

organizations as well as condominiums, the Court finds 

the [Association] has complied with the law in providing owners with financial and other information pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §76-876. The Association has 

established a process to provide owners financial and 

other records of the [A]ssociation and has this information reasonably available for examination by any unit 

owner and his or her authorized agents. In addition, the 

Court finds the methods of providing information to the 
- 369 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

owners by the [Association] comply with Nebraska law. 

The resolution adopted by the [Association] does not 

conflict with the law and is consistent with the Nebraska 

Non-Profit Corporation Act. In addition, the resolution 

does not conflict with the [NCA]. The documents and 

method of making the financial and other records available comply with the requirement that this information 

is made reasonably available to owners and their agents. 

Further, the resolution found in Exhibit 115 does not 

prohibit owners from the ability to examine financial 

and other records of the [Association]. The method [the 

Association] provide[s] to owners for examination of 

records is reasonable. The Court does not find there to 

be a statutory requirement for [the Association] to allow 

copies to be made. [The Association has] both a website 

and an on-site computer where owners can review financial and other documents at their leisure.

The relief sought by Dunbar was denied, and the case was 

dismissed.

(d) Reconciling Condominium Statutes 

With Nonprofit Statutes

The district court concluded the Association’s resolution 

limiting access to records was in compliance with the nonprofit laws and the condominium laws. However, as already 

noted, the Association’s reliance on § 21-19,166(c) to limit 

an owner’s access to all financial records (other than annual 

budget) is not consistent with the nonprofit corporation statutes 

discussed above. Further, the resolution is not consistent with 

the applicable provision of the condominium laws, specifically 

§ 76-876. The plain language of § 76-876 gives a condominium owner the right to examine “[a]ll financial and other 

records of the association . . . .” Therefore, even if the resolution had been written in a manner consistent with the nonprofit 

corporation statutes, it would have nevertheless conflicted with 

the rights conferred upon owners under the condominium laws 
- 370 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

written specifically for their common ownership interests in the 

condominium regime.

[6] To the extent that there is conflict between two statutes 

on the same subject, the specific statute controls over the 

general statute. Cox Nebraska Telecom v. Qwest Corp., 268 

Neb. 676, 687 N.W.2d 188 (2004) (specific statutes governing 

telecommunications appeals control over general provisions 

governing appeals from Public Service Commission).

The Nebraska Nonprofit Corporation Act applies broadly 

to all nonprofit corporations and therefore is of general application in this case, whereas the NCA applies only to condominium regimes and condominium owners and therefore 

has specific application to the issues before us. To construe 

any language of the nonprofit corporation statutes to control 

the language of § 76-876 would have the effect of nullifying 

or making meaningless the words “[a]ll financial and other 

records,” as set forth in the condominium statute. We therefore 

conclude § 76-876 controls a condominium owner’s right to 

examine all financial and other records of its association.

The Association points us to the considerable records it 

does publish, including but not limited to “the Master Deed 

. . . , election results . . . , the financial records from 2015 

. . . , the certificate of insurance . . . , the complete financial records of the [Association], the operating budget . . . , 

budget comparative balance and balance sheet . . . , income 

statement . . . , and the [Association] check register . . . .” 

Brief for appellee at 37. Those records are available on a 

website operated by the Association and available to owners 

without internet access in “the [Association] building office.” 

Id. The Association argues that the “records resolution is a 

lawful and proper exercise of its fiduciary duty to its owners and members” and that it is a “proper balance between 

owners and members that seek records of the [Association] 

and the limited owners/members of the [Association], like 

[Dunbar], who abuse the rights to [Association] records by 

making demands that the [Association] Board reasonably 
- 371 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

determines to not be in good faith and not for a proper purpose.” Id. at 36.

However, that balance is not the Association’s to strike; the 

decision regarding a condominium owner’s access to records 

was decided by the legislative branch when enacting the CPA 

and NCA. Further, as Dunbar aptly points out, “[t]he right of 

condominium owners to examine records does not turn on 

whether the [A]ssociation happens to be organized as a corporation or not.” Brief for appellant at 24. As Dunbar argues, 

“‘all’ means all,” reply brief for appellant at 7, and condominium owners are entitled to examine whatever financial or other 

records exist, per the plain language of the NCA.

We therefore reverse the district court’s order determining that the resolution did not conflict with Dunbar’s rights 

under § 76-876. We also reverse the district court’s finding 

that the resolution was in compliance with the nonprofit corporation statutes. We remand the cause to the district court 

with directions to issue an order finding that the Association’s 

resolution was neither in compliance with the NCA, specifically § 76-876, nor in compliance with the nonprofit statutes 

as discussed above, and further finding that Dunbar is entitled 

to “[a]ll financial and other records of the association” under 

§ 76-876, which records shall be made reasonably available 

for examination. We next discuss Dunbar’s argument that making the records reasonably available includes allowing him to 

make copies.

2. Right to Copy Records

The district court’s June 2, 2017, order states, “The 

Association has established a process to provide owners financial and other records of the [A]ssociation and has this information reasonably available for examination by any unit owner 

and his or her authorized agents.” The court further found that 

there was no “statutory requirement for [the Association] to 

allow copies to be made. [The Association has] both a website 

and an on-site computer where owners can review financial 
- 372 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

and other documents at their leisure.” We agree with the court’s 

determination on this issue, so long as the records being made 

available to the owners include, under § 76-876, “[a]ll financial 

and other records of the association.”

Dunbar argues that § 76-876 carries with it “the right to 

‘copy’ such records.” Brief for appellant at 25. Dunbar points 

us to case law from several other jurisdictions interpreting 

various statutory rights to inspect or examine records which 

he claims supports his argument that the right to examine 

documents includes the right to copy them. He also points to 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712 (Reissue 2014), but that statute pertains to public records and is not applicable here.

[7,8] However, we need not consider how other states may 

handle the copying of records for condominium owners when 

the plain language of § 76-876 requires only that such records 

be made “reasonably available for examination by any unit 

owner and his or her authorized agents.” 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. 

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

not within the province of the courts to read a meaning into a 

statute that is not there or to read anything direct and plain out 

of a statute. Id.

We decline to read into the language of § 76-876 a right to 

make copies of the records. The Legislature did not include 

any such language regarding copies in the statute, which it 

could have done, like it has with other statutory schemes. For 

example, § 21-19,166(a) of the nonprofit corporation laws, 

set forth earlier, provides that “a member is entitled to inspect 

and copy” certain corporation records. Even the Association 

acknowledged, in its closing argument at trial, the existence of 

rights to inspect and copy certain records under the nonprofit 

corporation statutes. However, we need not address whether 

some of the records sought by Dunbar should be available for 

copying under the nonprofit corporation statutes, as Dunbar’s 
- 373 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

argument at trial and on appeal was only that his right to 

access all records included the right to copy all records under 

§ 76-876. We agree with the district court that § 76-876 does 

not confer on condominium owners the right to make copies 

of all records; rather, it gives them the right to examine all 

of them.

3. Amendment to Master Deed

Regarding Pets

The Association filed an amendment (regarding pets) to 

the master deed with the Douglas County register of deeds on 

August 3, 2011. Dunbar sought a declaration that the amendment was void or invalid and that it should be voided or 

“stricken by the Recorder of Deeds.” Dunbar’s requested relief 

was denied by the district court.

The master deed, at paragraph 7(i), states, “Household pets 

will be subject to regulation, restriction, exclusion and special 

assessment, as may be determined by the Association from 

time to time.” The 2011 amendment, which was signed by the 

Association president on August 24, 2010, attaches a 2-page 

“Exhibit A” titled “Twin Towers Condominium Association 

Pet Addendum.” The addendum limits the number of cats and 

dogs per unit, with dogs limited to a weight of “25 pounds 

or less per dog.” Certain breeds of dogs are “never acceptable,” and “[e]xotic pets” are not allowed. There are a number 

of rules regarding expectations of pet and owner behaviors 

set forth in the addendum, including that pets violating the 

policy may be required to be permanently removed from the 

property and owners may be subject to fines. The addendum 

also provides that the board or property manager “shall from 

time to time have the right to make reasonable changes and 

additions to the pet policies, if said changes are in writing 

and distributed to all owners/renters who are permitted to 

have pets.”

Dunbar argues that the amendment to the master deed established “as a matter of deeded property rights” which pet breeds 
- 374 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

and sizes were permitted and which were not. Brief for appellant at 29. Dunbar asserts that the amendment

fundamentally changed the pet policy from one that was 

subject to the ongoing discretion of the revolving membership of the . . . board . . . to make and amend rules 

regarding the pet policy into one constituting a relatively 

permanent set of conditions that could only be altered by 

a subsequent master deed amendment.

Id. at 29-30. Dunbar’s concern was that the amendment 

removed from the board the authority to regulate pets and, 

thus, altered the rights of every unit owner by “transforming 

the Association’s rulemaking discretion . . . into a relatively 

permanent statement of policy with regard to pets.” Id. at 30. 

Dunbar claims that he “has a legally cognizable interest” in 

not permitting “his rights under the master deed to be altered 

without the consent of the necessary two-thirds majority of 

ownership.” Id. The question is, therefore, whether a two-thirds 

majority of the ownership approved and properly recorded 

the amendment. The Association asserts such a majority did; 

Dunbar disagrees.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on this 

issue, and the court ruled in favor of the Association. The 

court’s August 2, 2016, “Order on Cross Motions for Summary 

Judgment” referenced the Association’s affidavit, in which 

the person who was treasurer at the time of the amendment 

stated that an election was held in August 2010 to approve 

the amendment. The treasurer stated that although the ballots 

were no longer available, the election resulted in more than 

two-thirds of the owners voting in support of the amendment. Dunbar’s affidavit asserted that based on his personal 

knowledge and his review of the board minutes, there was 

no election held in August 2010. The district court found that 

Dunbar failed to explain the extent of his personal knowledge, 

other than his reading of the minutes, and therefore concluded 

Dunbar failed to meet his burden of proof. The district court’s 

order also stated, “It should also be noted [Dunbar] stated he 
- 375 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

did not intend to overturn the decision of the Association to 

allow owners to have pets. He simply wanted a declaration 

that the Association did not follow proper procedure for the 

amendment.” The court addressed this issue further in its subsequent order entered August 31 denying Dunbar’s motion to 

reconsider this issue. The court stated that “the allegations . . . 

regarding the pet amendment are non-judiciable [sic], either as 

moot or as an advisory opinion because [Dunbar] is not seeking removal of pets from the condominium.”

[9-13] We first address the district court’s finding that this 

issue was nonjusticiable either as moot or as calling for an 

advisory opinion. As stated in Nesbitt v. Frakes, 300 Neb. 1, 5, 

911 N.W.2d 598, 603 (2018):

An action becomes moot when the issues initially 

presented in the proceedings no longer exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of 

the action. A moot case is one which seeks to determine 

a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or 

rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no 

longer alive. Mootness refers to events occurring after 

the filing of a suit which eradicate the requisite personal 

interest in the resolution of the dispute that existed at the 

beginning of the litigation. Although mootness does not 

prevent appellate jurisdiction, it is a justiciability doctrine 

that can prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction.

Further, a “declaratory judgment action becomes moot when 

the issues initially presented in the proceedings no longer exist 

or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome 

of the action.” Id. at 7, 911 N.W.2d at 604.

The amendment to the master deed altered Dunbar’s property rights as a co-owner. The fact that he is not “seeking 

removal of pets from the condominium” does not resolve the 

issue of whether an invalid amendment to the master deed 

was recorded. As a co-owner and member of the Association, 

Dunbar continues to have a legally cognizable interest in the 

validity of any amendment to the master deed. Therefore, the 
- 376 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

court erred in finding the issue was moot or called for an advisory opinion.

[14] We turn now to the court’s finding that Dunbar failed 

to meet his burden of proof to overcome summary judgment 

against him. Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings 

and evidence admitted at the hearing disclose that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact or as to the ultimate 

inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See 

Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018). 

See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1332 (Supp. 2017).

As noted above, the Association produced an affidavit from 

the person serving as treasurer at the time of the amendment 

which stated that more than two-thirds of the condominium 

owners voted in support of the amendment in August 2010.

Dunbar’s affidavit stated that there was no election “or other 

approval by owners . . . that occurred on or before August 24, 

2010, as claimed in the purported amendment recorded August 

10, 2011.” The minutes of the board meetings immediately 

preceding the signing of the amendment by the Association 

president on August 24, 2010, were received as evidence. The 

April, May, and June 2010 minutes all contain a reference to 

a “[p]et policy” or pet-policy-related “update.” Notably, the 

May 19 minutes, at paragraph 10, states: “Pet policy update. 

Owners representing more than 50% of square footage have 

agreed to allow pets. ‘No’ votes represent about 5% of the 

building’s square footage. There are still owners who haven’t 

been contacted.” The June 28 minutes indicate that a letter will 

be sent to “all remaining owners next week” and state, “After 

the deadline, we will put out notice of the results.” The July 21 

minutes are silent as to any further activity related to the pet 

policy. And then significantly, the September 2 minutes show 

that the board approved the July minutes; nothing is indicated 

showing an August meeting, nor is there anything contained in 

the September minutes regarding the final results of the vote 

on the pet policy.
- 377 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

Dunbar also offered into evidence, at the hearing on the 

motion to reconsider, the affidavit of an owner of a unit in the 

condominium, who averred:

I did not receive any information or notice, formal or 

otherwise, of a unit owner’s election that, according to 

[the treasurer’s] affidavit, supposedly was held in August 

of 2010 regarding a pet amendment to the Master Deed. 

As a unit owner who was attentive to the affairs of the 

Association, I do not believe that any such unit owner’s 

election to amend the Master Deed was held in August 

of 2010 and that, if any such election had been held in 

August of 2010, I would have become aware of it.

We conclude the evidence was sufficient to create a genuine 

dispute as to material facts related to whether a proper vote 

was taken and recorded approving an amendment to the master 

deed regarding pets. Therefore, summary judgment was not 

appropriate on this issue. However, the disposition of this issue 

can be decided on other grounds, as discussed next.

Dunbar had sought summary judgment on the basis that the 

amendment is invalid on its face, and we agree. Regarding 

how to effect an amendment to the master deed, the master 

deed states:

Unless a greater number is required by law, co-owners 

representing two-thirds or more of the total basic value 

of the condominium may at any time in writing duly 

acknowledged and recorded effect an amendment to this 

Master Deed or the Bylaws of said condominium which 

are attached hereto . . . .

As previously noted, the amendment at issue is dated and 

signed by the Association’s president on August 24, 2010, but 

was not filed with the register of deeds until August 3, 2011. 

The amendment states, “[T]he undersigned owners of more 

than two-thirds (2/3) of the basic value of the Condominium 

desire to amend the By-Laws, Amendment to Master Deed 

and Rules and Regulations to allow pets as is described in 

Exhibit ‘A’ (attached).” As observed by the district court in its 
- 378 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

August 2, 2016, summary judgment order, the amendment is 

signed by the Association president at the time and attached to 

the amendment is a list of every owner of an Association unit. 

The district court specifically found, “The individual owners 

did not sign the amendment.” Dunbar asserts the attachment 

is “a printed list of every owner,” instead of signatures. Brief 

for appellant at 14.

We agree with Dunbar that the amendment was not in compliance with the master deed’s language for how to effect a proper 

amendment to the master deed. The amendment on its face does 

not demonstrate that it is a “writing duly acknowledged and 

recorded” by “co-owners representing two-thirds or more of 

the total basic value of the condominium” as the master deed 

specifies. The president is not authorized by the master deed 

to amend the master deed in lieu of the requisite co-owners; 

nor do the bylaws provide such authority. We also observe that 

there is a past amendment to the master deed included in our 

record which has an attachment containing the personal signatures of unit owners supporting the amendment.

As to the remedy for an invalid amendment, we are guided 

by McGill v. Lion Place Condo. Assn., 291 Neb. 70, 864 

N.W.2d 642 (2015), which concluded an improper amendment 

to a condominium’s declaration was void. McGill involved a 

district court judgment which invalidated the sale of limited 

common elements of a condominium governed by the NCA. 

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, interpreting one of 

the statutes under the NCA (not applicable here) to require 

approval by 80 percent of the votes in the association and 

unanimous agreement of the unit owners to effectuate the sale. 

Unlike the terms of the master deed at issue in the present 

matter, in McGill, under the NCA, the association president 

could file an amendment to the condominium’s declaration 

related to the sale. However, the sale of the limited common 

elements at issue still required the votes noted above, and an 

agreement for such a conveyance had to be evidenced by the 

execution of an agreement in the same manner as a deed and 
- 379 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

DUNBAR v. TWIN TOWERS CONDO. ASSN.

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 354

by the requisite number of unit owners. The Supreme Court 

noted that there was “no evidence of any agreement executed 

by the unit owners approving the sale” as required by statute. McGill v. Lion Place Condo. Assn., 291 Neb. at 92, 864 

N.W.2d at 658. Given the lack of compliance with the statute 

regarding conveyances of common elements under the NCA, 

the Supreme Court agreed with the district court that the conveyance was void.

We similarly find, given the lack of compliance with the 

plain language of the master deed in the present matter, that the 

amendment related to the pet policy is void. No statute under 

the CPA, nor any of the statutes under the NCA designated 

to apply to condominiums created before January 2, 1984, 

change the requirement for how to amend the master deed 

in this case. The master deed in the present matter requires 

a “writing duly acknowledged and recorded” by “co-owners 

representing two-thirds or more of the total basic value of the 

condominium.” That requisite acknowledgment and recording 

by two-thirds of the co-ownership have not been shown here. 

Accordingly, we find the district court erred in failing to grant 

summary judgment in favor of Dunbar on this issue, and we 

reverse that decision and remand the cause to the district court 

to enter an order granting judgment in favor of Dunbar on this 

issue and declaring the amendment void.

VI. CONCLUSION

In summary, we reverse the district court’s decision on two 

matters: (1) its conclusion that the Association’s resolution 

does not conflict with the applicable condominium law on 

a member’s right to examine records, specifically § 76-876, 

and (2) its decision regarding the validity of the master 

deed amendment regarding pets. As to those two matters, 

we remand with directions to enter an order in accordance 

with this opinion. In all other respects, we affirm the district 

court’s orders.

 Affirmed in part, and in part reversed

and remanded with directions.