Opinion ID: 6346607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: Extended Redemption Period. Nieveen first argues that the district court erred by finding that she was not entitled to the 5-year extended redemption period under § 77-1827. Nieveen contends that if she was entitled to the extended redemption period, title to the property should be quieted in her name, because she attempted to redeem the property in May 2019 by paying the unpaid taxes. We will thus consider whether the district court erred in its determination that Nieveen was not entitled to the extended redemption period. Section 77-1827 provides that “[t]he real property of persons with . . . a mental disorder so sold, or any interest they may have in real property sold for taxes, may be redeemed at any time within five years after such sale.” We have held that an owner of property is entitled to the 5-year redemption period set forth in § 77-1827 if the owner has a mental disorder at the time of the sale of the tax certificate. See Wisner, supra. Accordingly, the relevant question in this case is whether Nieveen had a mental disorder for purposes of § 77-1827 in March 2015. Nieveen’s appellate briefs appeared to accept that the governing definition of mental disorder under § 77-1827 was the definition applied by the district court and set forth in Wisner. That definition, quoted in the background section above, requires a party seeking the extended redemption period to establish that he or she has a mental health condition, but it also requires that he or she establish that the condition prevented the person from understanding his or her legal rights or taking action to protect those rights. See Wisner, supra. At oral argument, Nieveen seemed to at least implicitly back away from the Wisner formulation, arguing that Nieveen’s diagnoses alone should entitle her to the extended - 583 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports NIEVEEN v. TAX 106 Cite as 311 Neb. 574 redemption period. To the extent Nieveen has invited us to retreat from the definition of mental disorder adopted in Wisner, we decline. Our adherence to the definition of mental disorder set forth in Wisner is informed by the history of § 77-1827 and our interpretation of similar language in a similar statute. The language of § 77-1827 has not always used the term “mental disorder.” See § 77-1827 (Reissue 1981). Legislation enacted in 1986 removed the term “insane” and replaced it with “mental disorder.” See 1986 Neb. Laws, L.B. 1177, § 34. In the context of another statute providing for a tolling of the statute of limitations if a person was “insane,” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-213 (Reissue 1985), we said that “the word insane means such condition of mental derangement which actually prevents the sufferer from understanding his or her legal rights or instituting legal action” and that insanity, for purposes of that statute, “results in an incapacity which disqualifies one from acting for the protection of one’s rights.” Sacchi v. Blodig, 215 Neb. 817, 821, 822, 341 N.W.2d 326, 330 (1983) (emphasis omitted). The same legislation that changed the terminology of § 77-1827 removed that statute’s reference to the word “insane” and replaced it with “mental disorder.” 1986 Neb. Laws, L.B. 1177, § 5. After that amendment, the Nebraska Court of Appeals held that despite this change, the statute should have the same meaning. See Vergara v. Lopez-Vasquez, 1 Neb. App. 1141, 510 N.W.2d 550 (1993). The Court of Appeals relied on language from this court directing that “[a] mere change of phraseology” will not change the operation of a statute “unless the intent to make such change is clear and unmistakable.” Id. at 1146-47, 510 N.W.2d at 553, quoting Shames v. State, 192 Neb. 614, 223 N.W.2d 481 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Maycock v. Hoody, 281 Neb. 767, 799 N.W.2d 322 (2011), we affirmed the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of § 25-213. All of this history brings us to Wisner v. Vandelay, 300 Neb. 825, 916 N.W.2d 698 (2018), where we held that the - 584 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports NIEVEEN v. TAX 106 Cite as 311 Neb. 574 same definition that was once used for “insane” and was later extended to “mental disorder” for purposes of § 25-213 should also be used for “mental disorder” for purposes of § 77-1827. Given the similarities between the two statutes and between the respective amendments to the statutes in 1986, we are not convinced that holding was erroneous. Furthermore, in the time since our decision in Wisner, despite making other changes to the tax certificate sale process, see 2019 Neb. Laws, L.B. 463, §§ 1 through 8 and 10 (amending §§ 77-1802, 77-1831 through 77-1835, 77-1837, and 77-187.01 (Cum. Supp. 2020); repealing § 77-1824.01 (Cum. Supp. 2020)), the Legislature has not amended § 77-1827. As we often say, where a statute has been judicially construed and that construction has not evoked an amendment, it will be presumed that the Legislature has acquiesced in the court’s determination of the Legislature’s intent. Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458, 894 N.W.2d 296 (2017). Accordingly, we will analyze Nieveen’s claim that she had a mental disorder for purposes of § 77-1827 under the definition adopted in Wisner. Under the Wisner definition, Nieveen was required to prove that she had a condition of mental derangement which prevented her either from understanding her legal rights or from taking action to protect her legal rights. We do not believe Nieveen proved that her condition was such that she was incapable of understanding her legal rights. Nieveen acknowledged in testimony that she knew she had to pay her bills and that there were consequences if she did not. We likewise are not persuaded that Nieveen proved that her mental condition in March 2015 prevented her from taking action to protect her legal rights. Although Nieveen testified that her mental health was the only thing that would have prevented her from responding to the sale of the tax certificate in March 2015, there was also evidence of other possible reasons. Nieveen testified that sometimes she failed to pay bills because she lacked money. Nieveen’s daughter also testified that Nieveen failed to pay bills because of a - 585 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports NIEVEEN v. TAX 106 Cite as 311 Neb. 574 combination of lacking money and a “denial . . . of the way life works.” Other evidence also suggested that despite her depression and anxiety, Nieveen was capable of protecting her legal rights. Such capacity is indicated by her testimony that several years prior to trial, she promptly responded to a notice from the city about the condition of her house and, with the help of her brother-in-law, took corrective action. Furthermore, Nieveen admitted that her affairs were not managed by a guardian, conservator, or power of attorney. We also note that Nieveen acknowledged that even prior to starting a more effective medication in 2018, she had “good days” and “bad days” with respect to her depression and anxiety. All of Nieveen’s testimony focused on her claimed inability to tend to responsibilities during “bad days.” Nieveen provided no testimony, however, that would have established what she was experiencing in March 2015 when the tax certificate was sold. Hellbusch, Nieveen’s expert witness, could not give an opinion as to Nieveen’s condition in March 2015. On the other hand, Gutnick, Vintage’s expert witness, stated in his affidavit that based on his review of her medical records, he saw no evidence that she was unable to protect her rights at that time. After reviewing this evidence de novo, we find that the district court did not err in determining that Nieveen did not have a mental disorder for purposes of § 77-1827 and thus was not entitled to the extended redemption period provided for in that statute. While we have no reason to question that Nieveen suffered from depression and anxiety in 2015, we do not believe she proved that those conditions prevented her from understanding her legal rights or taking action to protect them. Our decision should not be understood as a conclusion that depression and anxiety could never constitute a mental disorder under § 77-1827. Procedural Due Process. Nieveen next argues that the district court erred by dismissing her claim that the issuance of the tax deed violated - 586 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports NIEVEEN v. TAX 106 Cite as 311 Neb. 574 her rights to procedural due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 3, of the Nebraska Constitution. The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides that States shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The language in the Nebraska Constitution is similar. It says, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” Neb. Const. art. I, § 3. We have interpreted our state constitutional provision “coextensive[ly]” with that of the 14th Amendment. Keller v. City of Fremont, 280 Neb. 788, 791, 790 N.W.2d 711, 713 (2010). Nieveen alleged in her operative complaint that her rights to procedural due process were violated in two ways. First, she asserted that she was provided inadequate notice because, pursuant to § 77-1831, she received notice of her right to redeem only 3 months prior to Vintage’s filing an application for the tax deed. Second, she asserted that she was denied her right to procedural due process because there was no process in place to claim a right to the extended redemption period under § 77-1827. We can quickly conclude that the district court did not err by dismissing Nieveen’s claim she was entitled to more advance notice of Vintage’s intent to apply for a tax deed to her property. We very recently rejected essentially the same argument in Continental Resources v. Fair, ante p. 184, 971 N.W.2d 313 (2022). In that case, we held that due process did not require the delinquent taxpayer to receive notice at the time of the tax certificate sale and that it was sufficient the delinquent taxpayer received actual notice that a tax certificate had been sold, that he had 3 months to redeem the property, and that if the property owner failed to do so, the tax certificate holder would apply for a tax deed. Id. Under the reasoning of Continental Resources, Nieveen cannot show that she was constitutionally entitled to earlier notice. - 587 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports NIEVEEN v. TAX 106 Cite as 311 Neb. 574 As for Nieveen’s claim that she was denied procedural due process because there was no process in place to claim a right to the extended redemption period under § 77-1827, it too encounters an immediate hurdle. As the district court observed in dismissing this claim, Nieveen brought this lawsuit to invalidate the tax deed on the basis of the extended redemption period and thus it cannot be said that there was no process by which Nieveen could claim a right to the extended redemption period. No doubt aware of this difficulty, Nieveen argues on appeal that due process required that she be provided with a hearing in which she could claim a right to the extended redemption period prior to the issuance of the tax deed. We are not persuaded that the district court erred by dismissing this aspect of Nieveen’s procedural due process claim. First, it is not clear that Nieveen was constitutionally entitled to an opportunity for a hearing prior to the issuance of the tax deed. Procedural due process is flexible and calls for such protections as the particular situation demands. Manning v. Dakota Cty. Sch. Dist., 279 Neb. 740, 782 N.W.2d 1 (2010). And although sometimes government entities must provide an opportunity for a hearing before a party is deprived of an interest protected by the Due Process Clause, that is not always the case. See id. Nieveen has not offered any reasons why it was imperative that an opportunity for a predeprivation hearing be provided here, and it would seem that at least some of the relevant factors tilt in the opposite direction. In order to determine whether an opportunity for predeprivation process is required, courts consider the “competing interests at stake, along with the promptness and adequacy of later proceedings.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 53, 114 S. Ct. 492, 126 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1993). The competing interests can be analyzed through the three-part inquiry set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976), which requires a balancing of - 588 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports NIEVEEN v. TAX 106 Cite as 311 Neb. 574 the private interest affected by official action, the risk of an erroneous deprivation through the procedures used, and the government’s interest. See James Daniel Good Real Property, supra. Here, although Nieveen obviously has a great interest in her property, her operative complaint acknowledged that even after the issuance of the tax deed, she continued to reside there. Further, Nieveen can hardly argue that the process she ultimately received—a full-blown trial before a district court judge with the power to invalidate the tax deed issued to Vintage and quiet title in her name—was somehow inadequate. In the end, we find it unnecessary to determine whether Nieveen was constitutionally entitled to the opportunity for a hearing on the applicability of § 77-1827’s extended redemption period prior to the issuance of the tax deed. We reach this conclusion because Nieveen had such an opportunity. Nieveen’s operative complaint alleges that she received notice that the tax certificate holder was applying for a tax deed on March 2, 2018, but Lancaster County did not issue a deed to Vintage until June 22. Nieveen could have filed a lawsuit prior to June 22 seeking to enjoin Lancaster County from issuing the tax deed on the grounds that she was entitled to § 77-1827’s extended redemption period. In other words, Nieveen was not denied a hearing prior to the issuance of the tax deed; she failed to avail herself of the opportunity for such a hearing. As we have previously held, the requirements of due process are satisfied if a person has reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard appropriate to the nature of the proceeding and the character of the rights which might be affected by it; if a person has access to the courts for protection of his or her rights, it cannot be said that such person was deprived of property without due process of law. Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713, 592 N.W.2d 894 (1999). Whether there should be an additional administrative process—permitting a delinquent property owner, before the issuance of a tax deed, to claim - 589 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports NIEVEEN v. TAX 106 Cite as 311 Neb. 574 the extended right to redeem under § 77-1827—is a matter properly addressed to the Legislature. We find that the district court did not err in dismissing Nieveen’s procedural due process claims. Takings. Nieveen also challenges the district court’s dismissal of her claim that the issuance of the tax deed violated the Takings Clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions. In support of these claims, Nieveen alleged in her operative complaint that by issuing the tax deed to Vintage, Lancaster County effectuated a taking of her property for a private purpose. Alternatively, Nieveen alleged in her operative complaint that even if the issuance of the tax deed was for a public purpose, she was entitled to just compensation because her equity in the real property exceeded her tax debt. Again, however, we recently rejected identical arguments in Continental Resources v. Fair, ante p. 184, 971 N.W.2d 313 (2022). In light of that decision, Nieveen cannot show the district court erred by dismissing her claims under the Takings Clauses. Excessive Fines. Finally, Nieveen argues that the district court erred by dismissing her claims based on the Excessive Fines Clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions. Nieveen alleged that because the issuance of the tax deed resulted in her losing equity in her property well above her tax debt, it is an excessive fine. In Continental Resources, supra, we rejected an identical argument that the issuance of a tax deed violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the U.S. Constitution. And although no claim was made under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Nebraska Constitution in Continental Resources, Nieveen has not made an argument that we should ascribe a different meaning to that provision than its essentially identical federal counterpart. Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Nieveen’s claim under the Excessive Fines Clauses. - 590 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports NIEVEEN v. TAX 106 Cite as 311 Neb. 574