In all controversies and suits involving the title to real property claimed and held under and by virtue of a deed made substantially by the treasurer in the manner provided by sections 77-1831 to 77-1842, the person claiming the title adverse to the title conveyed by such deed shall be required to prove, in order to defeat the title, either (1) that the real property was not subject to taxation for the years or year named in the deed; (2) that the taxes had been paid before the sale; (3) that the property has been redeemed from the sale according to the provisions of sections 77-1201 to 77-1219, 77-1229 to 77-1236, 77-1301 to 77-1318.01, 77-1501 to 77-1514, 77-1601 to 77-1618, 77-1701 to 77-1710, 77-1716 to 77-1738, 77-1740 to 77-1767, and 77-1801 to 77-1855, and that such redemption was had or made for the use and benefit of persons having the right of redemption under the laws of this state; or (4) that there had been an entire omission to list or assess the property, or to levy the taxes, or to sell the property.
Notes of Decisions
Wisner v. Vandelay Invs., L.L.C., 300 Neb. 825 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 9× “While § 77-1844 does not specify whom the taxes due on the property must be paid to, § 77-1843 requires the property to have been redeemed pursuant to various statutory sections.”
Ottaco Acceptance, Inc. v. Larkin, 733 N.W.2d 539 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 17× “*770 § 77-1843 (Reissue 2003), Sigma was required to prove that it had properly redeemed the property.”
Adair Holdings v. Johnson, 304 Neb. 720 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 10× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1843 (Reissue 2009) has a jurisdictional component that renders a tax deed void when the tax deed holder failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements prior to acquiring the deed.”
Wisner v. Vandelay Investments, 300 Neb. 825 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 13× “The statutory prerequisites to defeat- ing title, in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1843 (Reissue 2009), apply only to those tax deeds made after substantial compliance with Neb.”
Ottaco Acceptance, Inc. v. Huntzinger, 682 N.W.2d 232 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 77-1842 (Reissue 2003), and (6) finding that Huntzinger could maintain her claim without satisfying Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1843 and 77-1844 (Reissue 2003).”
MacK v. Luebben, 341 N.W.2d 335 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 77-1843 (Reissue 1981). Furthermore, Neb.”
O'TOOLE v. Yunghans, 320 N.W.2d 768 (Neb. 1982).
· cites it 4× “Yunghans asserts that her tax title is protected by the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1843 and 77-1844 (Reissue 1976).”
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.