Nebraska Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions

Woodsonia Hwy 281, LLC v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 318 Neb. 592 (2025)

The Nebraska Supreme Court recently clarified the already narrow scope of forcible entry and detainer actions.  In Woodsonia Hwy 281, LLC v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., the court held that lower courts must dismiss forcible entry and detainer actions if there is a genuine title issue involved.  318 Neb. 592, 608 (2025).  The court defined a “title issue” as a dispute regarding legal ownership or entitlement to possession of the subject property.

In 2022, Conestoga Mall 2022, LLC agreed to sell a mall to Woodsonia Hwy 281, LLC (“Woodsonia”).  Woodsonia planned to use tax-increment financing to redevelop the mall.  As part of its redevelopment plan, Woodsonia sought to terminate all existing lease agreements for units within the mall.  American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (“AMC”) was unwilling to terminate its lease.

Woodsonia advised AMC that, if AMC did not accept the termination, the Community Redevelopment Authority of the City of Grand Island, Nebraska (“CRA”) would condemn AMC’s leasehold interest.  Id., at 597.  Woodsonia then transferred AMC’s leasehold interest to the CRA and entered into a termination agreement for the same.  Id., at 600.

AMC did not vacate the property.  In response, Woodsonia filed a forcible entry and detainer action.  Id.  Woodsonia plead that the lease enabled it to transfer AMC’s leasehold interest under the threat of condemnation.  In its defense, AMC asserted that the lease did not allow Woodsonia to transfer AMC’s leasehold interest without AMC’s consent.  Accordingly, AMC alleged that it remained in lawful possession of the property.

The County Court for Hall County, Nebraska, found for Woodsonia and entered an order of restitution.  AMC timely appealed to the District Court of Hall County, Nebraska, which affirmed.

The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the action and remanded it to the lower court with directions to dismiss.  The court held there was a “title issue” underlying Woodsonia’s forcible entry and detainer claim.  Accordingly, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The court stated that “[a] forcible entry and detainer action is not the proper action to resolve a contract dispute between a landlord and tenant – even one that is ‘simple.’”  Id. at 612.  Further, such action “does not try the question of title, but only the immediate right of possession.”  Id., at 608 (citing Federal Nat. Mortgage Assn. v. Marcuzzo, 289 Neb. 301, 303 (2014)).

The court reasoned that because the Nebraska Legislature created forcible entry and detainer actions, courts must necessarily limit their scope to narrowly fit the plain text of the statute.  Id. at 605.

Section 25-21,219 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes creates this cause of action.  It provides the court jurisdiction only to grant restitution of the premises.  If title is unclear, restitution is unclear.

Given their narrow scope, the Court noted the only purpose of these actions is to provide a quick proceeding to return possession of the premises to their rightful owner. Id. at 606-07.  If a court “can[not] find and determine the right of possession without at the same time determining the rights of the parties . . . the court must dismiss the forcible entry and detainer action for want of jurisdiction.”  Id., at 608 (citing Jones v. Schmidt, 163 Neb. 508, 517 (1957)).

Attorneys at Baird Holm specialize in various subject matter areas including commercial tenant disputes, property rights, and litigation.  Please contact us with any questions you may have regarding these areas.  Thank you.