Any person claiming title to real estate, whether in actual possession or not, for which he can show a plain and connected title, in law or equity, derived from the records of some public office, from the United States, or from this state, or anyone who has derived title from any such person by devise, descent, deed, contract or bond, shall not be evicted or turned out of possession of such real estate. His claim or title shall not be set aside or canceled by any court in any proceedings brought or commenced by any person setting up and proving an adverse and better title or claim to such real estate, until he shall be fully paid the value of all lasting and valuable improvements made upon such real estate by him or by those under whom he claims, and also for all taxes and assessments paid upon the real estate by him and the persons under whom he claims, with interest thereon at the same rate of interest as provided by law for delinquent taxes, and for all sums of money paid by him, or those under whom he claims, to redeem such real estate from any sale or sales for nonpayment of taxes previous to receiving actual notice by the commencement of suit on such adverse title or claim by which such eviction or cancellation may be had, unless the occupant or claimant shall refuse to pay the person so setting up and proving an adverse and better title the value of such real estate without improvements made thereon as aforesaid, upon the demand of the successful claimant as hereinafter provided.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1947–2023 · leading case:
Walters v. Sporer, 298 Neb. 536 (Neb. 2017).
Walters v. Sporer, 298 Neb. 536 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 4× “For an affirmative defense, the Sporers alleged that John’s “[c]omplaint should be barred, in full or in part, due to its fail- ure to comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. §76-301 , et seq., providing for the reimbursement of an occupant for improvements made and taxes paid.”
Lincoln Lumber Co. v. Elston, 511 N.W.2d 162 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “CURRENT PROCEEDINGS On March 1,1991, Karen filed an application pursuant to the “Occupants and Claimants Act,” Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 76-301 through 76-311 (Reissue 1990), in which she claimed an interest in the home for payments she had made for interest, taxes, and improvements.”
McIntosh v. Borchers, 266 N.W.2d 200 (Neb. 1978).
· cites it 2× “The defendants insist that plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or damages and have taken the position that plaintiffs cannot claim the benefits of the Occupying Claimants Act, section 76-301, R. R. S. 1943. We do not decide whether that act applies to this case because…”
Beckner v. Urban, 309 Neb. 677 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 2× “STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] The point at which a statute of limitations begins to run must be determined from the facts of each case, and the deci- sion of the district court on the issue of the statute of limita- tions normally will not be set aside by an appellate court unless…”
Hongsermeier v. Devall, 744 N.W.2d 481 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-301 et seq. (Reissue 2003) (enacted with respect to occupying claimants).”
Converse v. Kenyon, 132 N.W.2d 334 (Neb. 1965).
· cites it 2× “In support of this argument they cite in their brief section 76-301, R. R. S. 1943. The plaintiffs’ petition contained no reference to taxes paid and asked no refunding of such taxes.”
Wightman v. City of Wayne, 28 N.W.2d 575 (Neb. 1947).
· cites it 2× “For support in this connection he relies on section 76-301, R. S. 1943, commonly known as the Occupying Claimants Act, and a claimed general equitable principle that under the facts pleaded his improvements should not be sold for the satisfaction of the lien.”
Hammond v. Harrington, 33 N.W.2d 293 (Neb. 1948).
· cites it 4× “Defendant Niklaus further contends that if his claim of *3 title is not sustained he is entitled to recover $25,000 for improvements placed upon said land under the Occupying Claimants Act, section 76-301, R. S. 1943. The defendant Reed claims an interest in the lands by virtue…”
Carlson v. Carlson, 334 N.W.2d 437 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 2× “We stated it to be the general rule that in the absence of a statute any permanent improvement placed upon the land of another, by one having no interest or title therein, without the owner’s consent, prima facie becomes a part of the realty and belongs to the owner of the fee,…”
Erickson v. Fed. Land Bank of Omaha, 101 B.R. 124 (D. Neb. 1989).
· cites it 6× “” The Ericksons argue that under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 76-301, they are entitled to have their property appraised and to have the value of any improvements that they have made on the property since the time that the mortgage was given to be credited to them as equity in the property.”
Homebuyers Inc. v. Watkins (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “- 16 - (v) Unjust Enrichment--Occupants and Claimants Finally, in their third amended third-party complaint the Watkinses “claim all of the rights and benefits to which they may be entitled under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-301 et seq. [(Reissue 2018)].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.