Opinion ID: 1345944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Identification of Persons, Parties, Lands, and Lots Within Proposed SID

Text: Under § 31-727(1)(a) and (f), petitioners must identify the owners of real property within the proposed SID to establish that a majority of the owners support its formation. The objectors claim the petitioners failed to properly identify all persons, parties, lands, and lots within the proposed SID. Neither the SID statutes nor relevant case law specify the manner in which the identity of owners is to be established. Petitioners seeking to form an SID must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a majority of owners within the proposed SID have joined in the effort to form the SID. Cf. Zwink v. Ahlman, 177 Neb. 15, 128 N.W.2d 121 (1964) (concluding preponderance of evidence demonstrated that creation of SID would benefit land in proposed district). We conclude the petitioners satisfied the requirements of § 31-727 regarding the identification of real property owners. We have determined the petitioners established that a majority of the owners within the district voted to form the SID. This determination leaves unnecessary a detailed discussion of the objectors' claim regarding the identification of real property owners within the district, so we summarize below our review of the record concerning this issue. The objectors claim that attorney-certified title reports offered by the petitioners did not prove the title and ownership of real estate within the SID because (1) they did not explain how the described lands related to land embraced within the SID and (2) the preparers of such reports made errors when the reports were assembled. These are evidentiary arguments. To preserve a claimed error in the admission of evidence, a litigant must make a timely objection which specifies the ground of the objection to the offered evidence. Washa v. Miller, 249 Neb. 941, 546 N.W.2d 813 (1996). At trial, the objectors expressly waived any foundation and hearsay objections to the title report exhibits, and they raised no other objections to these exhibits. Consequently, the objectors have not preserved their ability to contest the title reports before this court. The objectors also argue that several exhibits admitted at trial demonstrate that the petitioners either added names of persons who did not own property within the district or omitted names of some who did. Our de novo review of the record reveals that the objectors' arguments are without merit, and we summarize our findings here. In several instances, the objectors point to one piece of evidence by itself and claim it demonstrates that the petitioners either added an improper name or omitted a proper name. However, the petitioners showed the identity of owners through a combination of evidence, including legal descriptions and maps of the district, title searches, and testimony at trial. From such evidence and the signature pages attached to the articles of association, the petitioners compiled a list of owners who supported the SID and another list of owners who did not support it. We conclude that the petitioners satisfactorily identified the owners within the district. Several of the objectors' arguments concern property that had been transferred from one owner to another. For example, Central's signature page and an accompanying document from the register of deeds identified certain property within the district not owned by Central. The objectors point out that these documents refer to two owners whose names were not included in either of the petitioners' lists of owners. The record indicates that the property in question was included in the title reports offered by the petitioners, but the property was recorded under a different name because the property had been transferred to another owner. The new owner signed the articles of association. The objectors challenge the validity of several names on the signature pages attached to the articles of association. We reject these claims. Some of the objectors' claims are based on the false premise that all the names of persons who signed as owners were in fact counted by the petitioners in their final tally of owners; they were not. Furthermore, some of the signatory names contested by the objectors did not appear on older title search reports, but the names did appear on more current title search reports. The objectors argue that a number of signers to the articles of association failed to include the date of signing and, thus, the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof to identify real property owners within the district. We reject this argument because § 31-727 contains no requirement that the signature of each owner supporting the SID be accompanied by a date. It is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted by the legislative language. Rauscher v. City of Lincoln, 269 Neb. 267, 691 N.W.2d 844 (2005). The record shows that a substantial majority of owners on Johnson Lake associated to form the SID. The district court found that even if the alleged omissions or additions were proved to be meritorious (which they were not) and the corrections were made as requested by the objectors, the petitioners would still have a majority of the owners. We agree. We have reviewed the record before us de novo, and we conclude the district court correctly found that the petitioners had adequately identified the owners within the district pursuant to § 31-727.