Opinion ID: 2051888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: propositions of law

Text: The parties agree that this action constitutes a collateral attack upon both the subject water and sewer special assessments against the property of the Hospital, and is not a direct appeal from the city ordinances of the City of North Platte authorizing the establishment of the subject water and sewer extension districts, as required by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 19-2422 (Reissue 1987). A property owner may collaterally attack a special assessment only for the limited purposes of fraud, actual or constructive, a fundamental defect, or want of jurisdiction. Grube v. City of Ogallala, 223 Neb. 640, 392 N.W.2d 380 (1986). Where it is alleged and proven that the physical facts are such that the property was not and could not be specially benefited, the levy may be held to be arbitrary, constructively fraudulent, and therefore void, and may be subject to collateral attack. Grube v. City of Ogallala, supra ; Nebco, Inc. v. Speedlin, 198 Neb. 34, 251 N.W.2d 710 (1977); Midwest Development Corp. v. City of Norfolk, 192 Neb. 475, 222 N.W.2d 566 (1974); Wead v. City of Omaha, 124 Neb. 474, 247 N.W. 24 (1933). Mere excessiveness of a special assessment may not be corrected in a collateral attack upon the assessment. A property owner who attacks a special assessment as void has the burden of establishing its invalidity. All defects, irregularities, and inequalities in the making of an assessment, or in proceedings prior thereto, not raised by appeal from the assessment are waived and cannot be questioned in the collateral proceedings. Nebco, Inc. v. Speedlin, supra ; Midwest Development Corp. v. City of Norfolk, supra ; Wiborg v.  City of Norfolk, 176 Neb. 825, 127 N.W.2d 499 (1964). Special assessments are charges imposed by law on land to defray the expense of a local municipal improvement on the theory that the property has received special benefits from the improvements in excess of the benefits accruing to property or people in general. Nebco, Inc. v. Speedlin, supra . Several witnesses, including North Platte's city engineer, its fire chief, and a registered engineer expert witness testified that the Hospital received special present and likely future benefits from both the subject water and sewer improvements. These special benefits included enhanced fire protection by reason of the closer location of the two fire hydrants at the south entrance to the Hospital building, better water flow, and less firehose layout. Evidence was also adduced that the new sewerline provided additional service and would be available if additional buildings would be added at a later time. The Hospital cites the case of Grube v. City of Ogallala, supra , in support of its contention that the Hospital would not receive any special benefit from either the subject water or sewer improvements. However, there is a factual difference in the Grube case in which the tract was undeveloped agricultural land irrigated by a center pivot which would not be specially benefited by the proposed improvements. In contrast, the Hospital tract had already been commercially developed and had a history of continuing growth as a medical center, with a potential for further health care related services in North Platte. A collateral attack upon a special assessment is a proceeding in equity, which this court reviews de novo on the record. Grube v. City of Ogallala, supra . It is a question of fact whether or not a property which has been specially assessed has or will benefit from an improvement project. Nebco, Inc. v. Speedlin, supra . The district court was correct in finding in this case that the physical facts are such that the Hospital's property has specially benefited from the improvements of the districts. The order of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.