Deeds made by the county treasurer shall be presumptive evidence in all courts of this state, in all controversies and suits in relation to the rights of the purchaser and his or her heirs or assigns to the real property thereby conveyed, of the following facts: (1) That the real property conveyed was subject to taxation for the year or years stated in the deed; (2) that the taxes were not paid at any time before the sale; (3) that the real property conveyed had not been redeemed from the sale at the date of the deed; (4) that the property had been listed and assessed; (5) that the taxes were levied according to law; (6) that the property was sold for taxes as stated in the deed; (7) that the notice had been served or due publication made as required in sections 77-1831 to 77-1835 before the time of redemption had expired; (8) that the manner in which the listing, assessment, levy, and sale were conducted was in all respects as the law directed; (9) that the grantee named in the deed was the purchaser or his or her assignee; and (10) that all the prerequisites of the law were complied with by all the officers who had or whose duty it was to have had any part or action in any transaction relating to or affecting the title conveyed or purporting to be conveyed by the deed, from the listing and valuation of the property up to the execution of the deed, both inclusive, and that all things whatsoever required by law to make a good and valid sale and to vest the title in the purchaser, subject to any lien on real estate for special assessments levied by a community improvement district or a sanitary and improvement district which special assessments have not been previously offered for sale by the county treasurer, were done.
Notes of Decisions
Wisner v. Vandelay Invs., L.L.C., 300 Neb. 825 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “58 Specifically, § 77-1842 provides that a tax deed is presumptive evidence that "the notice had been served or due publication made as required in sections 77-1831 to 77-1835 before the time of redemption had expired.”
Ottaco Acceptance, Inc. v. Huntzinger, 682 N.W.2d 232 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 5× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Ottaco assigns that the district court erred in (1) refusing to quiet title in favor of Ottaco, (2) finding that Huntzinger’s signature did not appear on the certified mail receipts, (3) finding that *261 notice was not provided to Huntzinger, (4) finding…”
Hauxwell v. Henning, 291 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1842 (Reissue 2009), a defendant’s tax deeds are presumptively valid.”
HBI, L.L.C. v. Barnette, 305 Neb. 457 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Vandelay Investments, 15 this court addressed whether the applicable language in §§ 77-1832 and 77-1834 permitted the holder of a tax certificate to serve a property owner by publication after being unable to serve her by certi- fied mail when the holder had actual knowledge of…”
Brown v. Glebe, 328 N.W.2d 786 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Unfortunately, Glebe is simply in error in this regard. It is true that § 77-1842 establishes various presumptions of validity.”
Thomas v. Flynn, 100 N.W.2d 37 (Neb. 1959).
· cites it 2× “This is particularly true in view of the provisions of section 77-1842, R. R. S. 1943. This being an action in equity, it is the duty of this court to try the issues de novo and reach an independent conclusion as to the merits thereof without reference to the findings of the…”
Kuska v. Kubat, 22 N.W.2d 484 (Neb. 1946).
· cites it 2× “At the very outset, plaintiffs are confronted with the applicability of that part of section 77-1842, R. S. 1943, which provides in substance that deeds made by the county treasurer shall be presumptive evidence in all court's, in all suits relating to the rights of purchasers…”
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.