Court Opinion

ID: 9672747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:59:30.721347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:18.059245
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority herein and write separately because I believe that while the result reached by the majority is correct, they have injected a concept which is incorrect. I specifically refer to that portion of the majority opinion which provides that the deed issued to Mack was void because of the treasurer’s error and therefore the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1855 (Reissue 1981) have no application. I do not believe that that is the case.
Section 77-1855 has been a part of the Nebraska statutes since before 1903. Early decisions based on the forerunner of § 77-1855 made it clear that one is to determine the validity of the deed for the purposes of § 77-1855 based upon whether the deed is ‘‘void on its face.” If the deed is not void on its face but merely voidable, as in the present case, then the statute applies. In one of the very early cases we said: ‘‘A tax deed must be valid on its face to entitle the party claiming under it to the benefit of the special limitation of the revenue law.” (Emphasis supplied.) (Syllabus of the court.) Bendexen v. Fenton, 21 Neb. 184, 31 N.W. 685 (1887). See, also, Housel v. Boggs, 17 Neb. 94, 22 N.W. 226 (1885). That has been the standard applied by this court since that time. See, also, Sherlock v. Gillis, 108 Neb. 72, 187 N.W. 812 (1922), overruled on other grounds in *839Podewitz v. Gering Nat. Bank, 171 Neb. 380, 106 N.W.2d 497 (1960); Lanigan v. Gilroy, 97 Neb. 754, 151 N.W. 297 (1915); Opp v. Smith, 102 Neb. 152, 166 N.W. 265 (1918). If, indeed, the tax deed in this case was void because it was issued by reason of a mistake made in the treasurer’s books, not appearing on the face of the deed, then the provisions of § 77-1855 apply.
The majority, however, is correct in its conclusion because, in addition to acquiring a deed valid on its face, one further requirement is imposed before the provisions of § 77-1855 apply. That requirement is that the claimant must be in actual possession of the land. In Baldwin v. Merriam, 16 Neb. 199, 201, 20 N.W. 250, 251 (1884), this court held: “Even if the deeds had been valid on their face the statute would not commence to run in favor of the holder until he took possession. A party in actual possession of real estate cannot be ousted from such possession or his title divested by merely recording a tax deed of which he may not be aware and under which nothing is claimed. If a party claims under a tax deed and invokes the aid of the special statute of limitations he must bring himself within the rule as to adverse possession.” (Emphasis supplied.) The evidence in this case is clear that Mack could not bring herself within the rules regarding adverse possession because whatever possession she may have had with regard to the property, and the evidence is less than clear, it was not possession by actual, open, exclusive, and continuous possession, and therefore was not sufficient to invoke the provisions of § 77-1855.