Stamm v. Fisher (PFR)

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Stamm v. Fisher (PFR)

Case Number
S-14-0592
Call Date
November 6, 2015
Court Number
Buffalo
Case Summary

S-14-0592 Vickki S. Stamm (Appellant) v. Ryan Fisher, et al.

Buffalo County District Court, Judge Teresa K. Luther

Attorneys: Michele J. Romero (Stamm Romero & Associates, P.C., L.L.O.) --- Larry W. Beucke (Parker, Grossart, Bahensky, Beucke & Bowman, L.L.P.)

Civil: Adverse possession; quiet title

Proceedings below: The district court granted Appellees' claim for adverse possession in part, providing a legal description to the parties and further quieting title to Appellant in other portions of the property. The district court overruled Appellant's motion for new trial. Appellant filed a Petition for Further Review which was granted by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issues on Review: The Trial Court erred in 1) finding Appellees are entitled to the northern section of the contested land that was not enclosed by the fence in previous years is in error as there was no evidence that the Appellees ever occupied that section of the contested real estate, 2) that the legal description produced by Appellees was insufficient as a matter of law and further the legal description produced by the Court in Appendix A of its opinion is inadequate as it includes the northern section of the contested real estate that no evidence was presented at trial to sustain a judgment of adverse possession of by the Appellees and further that it incorrectly defines the southern portion of the property wherein the fence did not connect to the southern boundary fence, 3) quieting title to Appellees of the contested real estate by adverse possession and further erred in finding that Appellant offered no evidence that she or any of her predecessors used any of the land in the contested area between 1997 and 2012 is incorrect and not sustained by the evidence produced at trial, 4) finding that the fence located on the property was a boundary fence and in using said fence to find that Appellees had acquired title to the Appellant's real estate instead of finding that the fence was simply a fence of convenience which was located on the property, 5) failing to allow Appellant to introduce statements by Rubye Stubbs and Grover Stubbs under the residuary exceptions to the hearsay rules, 6) overruling Appellant's second Motion in Limine which sought to restrict the presentation of evidence by Appellees of any claims or evidence after 1963 based upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel and Appellees' discovery responses, 7) awarding damages to Appellant which restricted the recovery to the last four years from the filing of the case by stating that early claims would be barred by the statute of limitations, which was never raised as a defense by Appellees, 8) overruling Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment, 9) finding against Appellant's Theory of Ejectment, 10) overruling Appellant's Motion for Injunction, 11) overruling Appellant's Motion for New Trial, 12) that irregularity in the proceedings of the court, or any order of the court or referee or abuse of discretion which prevented Appellant from having a fair trial, and 13) that errors of law occurred at the trial and were excepted to by the Appellant making the application.