Opinion ID: 2234419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Appeal: The District Court Properly Exercised Its Equity Jurisdiction.

Text: The Havraneks first assert that the district court improperly exercised its equity jurisdiction in this case. They argue that the Teadtkes had an adequate statutory remedy under §§ 39-1713 through 39-1719 but failed to avail themselves of such remedy prior to seeking equitable relief. Given the allegations in the complaint and the relief sought, we conclude that the court properly exercised its equity jurisdiction. In this action, the Teadtkes sought as relief a declaration that a public road existed over the Havraneks' property or a declaration that the Teadtkes owned a prescriptive easement over the property. The Teadtkes also sought injunctive relief to prevent the Havraneks from encroaching upon the road and to require the Havraneks to remove existing encroachments. An adjudication of rights with respect to an easement is an equitable action, Homestead Estates Homeowners Assn. v. Jones, 278 Neb. 149, 768 N.W.2d 436 (2009), and an action for injunction sounds in equity. Conley v. Brazer, 278 Neb. 508, 772 N.W.2d 545 (2009). Where a statute provides an adequate remedy at law, equity will not entertain jurisdiction, and the statutory remedy must be exhausted before one may resort to equity. V.C. v. Casady, 262 Neb. 714, 634 N.W.2d 798 (2001). An adequate remedy at law means a remedy which is plain and complete and as practical and efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity. Lambert v. Holmberg, 271 Neb. 443, 712 N.W.2d 268 (2006). The Havraneks claim that the district court should not have entertained this action in equity, because the Teadtkes did not exhaust the statutory remedy under §§ 39-1713 through 39-1719. These statutes generally provide owners of isolated land the right to obtain access to the land by an access road or a public road. The owner of isolated land may apply to the county board as set forth in § 39-1713. If the board finds that certain conditions are present, the board is required to provide an access road or a public road to the land; the board is also required to appraise the damages to the owner of the land over which access is to be provided, and such damages are to be paid by the person petitioning for access. See § 39-1716. It is important to note that the relief available under §§ 39-1713 through 39-1719 is limited to owners of isolated lands. Under § 39-1713(1), a person seeking relief under the statutes must allege, inter alia, that such real estate is shut out from all public access, other than a waterway, by being surrounded on all sides by real estate belonging to other persons, or by such real estate and by water. Such an assertion is inconsistent with the allegations made by the Teadtkes in this case. The Teadtkes did not allege that their land was shut out from all public access; to the contrary, the gravamen of their complaint was that a road existed over the Havraneks' property and that the road provided access to their property. The Teadtkes sought a declaration that a public road existed and an injunction preventing the Havraneks from interfering with use of the road. Because the Teadtkes claimed the existence of a public road that provided access to their property, it would have been inconsistent for them to have alleged that their land was isolated or shut out from all public access, as required for relief under §§ 39-1713 through 39-1719. See Burton v. Annett, 215 Neb. 788, 789, 341 N.W.2d 318, 319 (1983) (noting that land-owner in action under § 39-1713 had unsuccessfully sought judgment ... for declaration of a prescriptive right-of-way prior to pursuing statutory remedy under § 39-1713). Because it was the Teadtkes' position that a public road provided access to their land, the statutory remedy provided under §§ 39-1713 through 39-1719 was not available to them and they were not required to exhaust such remedy prior to bringing this equitable action. We conclude that the district court's analysis to the same effect was correct and that the district court did not err by exercising its equity jurisdiction in this case.