Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-551 (2026)

Disciplinary actions; grounds; unfair practices

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The board shall have the power (1) to revoke a certificate of registration or certificate of authority, (2) to suspend a certificate of registration or certificate of authority for a specific period not to exceed a year, (3) to censure a registered abstracter or holder of a certificate of authority, and (4) to issue a letter of reprimand to a registered abstracter or holder of a certificate of authority.

Such disciplinary actions may be invoked after a hearing as provided in section 76-552 for a violation of the Abstracters Act, including unfair practices, upon the conviction of the holder of a certificate of a felony, or if the board finds a holder to be guilty of habitual carelessness or of fraudulent practices in the conduct of the business of abstracting.

Unfair practices which are a violation of the Abstracters Act shall include:

(a) Failure to disclose an agency relationship to or interest in any title insurance business, law firm, real estate or insurance business, or any other business or enterprise to a client in the event that the holder of the certificate of registration or the holder of the certificate of authority would receive a fee directly or indirectly from such a relationship or interest during a transaction involving real estate in which the holder is retained to provide abstracting services for such client; and

(b) Paying or allowing a rebate of fees for abstracting services, which unfair practice specifically includes rendering a statement or bill to be passed on to third parties which does not reflect the true amount charged for such services or charging an amount from which a rebate is to be paid.

The board shall also have the power after a hearing as provided in section 76-552 to revoke or suspend a certificate of authority for failure to have employed a registered abstracter or for otherwise violating the Abstracters Act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Parks v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, 684 N.W.2d 543 (Neb. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Parks v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, 684 N.W.2d 543 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 2× “2003) (stating grounds for denying, suspending, or revoking securities license); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 76-551 (Reissue 2003) (authorizing disciplinary actions against licensed abstractors for specified conduct or felony convictions); Neb.”

Parks v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 684 N.W.2d 543 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 2× “2003) (stating grounds for denying, suspending, or revoking securities license); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-551 (Reissue 2003) (authorizing disciplinary actions against licensed abstractors for specified conduct or felony convictions); Neb.”

Mai v. German, 983 N.W.2d 114 (Neb. 2023). “Under § 76-551 of the Act, the board may hold hearings and impose discipline on abstracters who violate the Act or who are unfit to perform their duties.”

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.