Nebraska Supreme Court Reverses Eviction Decision That Prevented Tenant From Challenging Landlord’s Title

William Martens v. BB’s Childcare LLC, 321 Neb. 335 (2026)

Tasha McNeil and her company, BB’s Childcare, LLC (“Tenant”), leased property from William Martens (“Owner”). The lease granted Tenant an option to purchase the property, with rent payment credits applied toward the purchase price. Under the lease, any Tenant default rendered the purchase option void.

Tenant defaulted on rent payments. Owner filed a forcible entry and detainer action in county court. The county court returned possession to Owner.

On appeal, Tenant argued the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, since the dispute involved title to real property. Tenant alleged its purchase option and credit for rent payments gave Tenant equitable interest in the property.

Tenant moved to supplement the record with the county court transcript to show a title dispute. The transcript was filed late because the issue was not raised before the district court submitted the appeal for decision. The district court denied the motion to supplement and affirmed the county court’s judgment. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed for two reasons.

First, the court held the district court erred in rejecting the supplemental transcript. Courts review the denial of a motion to supplement the record for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law. Because a transcript is a mandatory part of the record on appeal, the district court erred in refusing to allow its late filing.

Second, the court evaluated whether the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The lease language and transcript demonstrated a dispute over equitable title arising from the option-to-purchase provision. County courts cannot resolve title disputes in forcible entry and detainer actions.[1] Therefore, the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  Because the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the district court abused its discretion in refusing to supplement the record.

The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss the forcible entry and detainer action. To retake possession, Owner must file an appropriate action.

Attorneys at Baird Holm assist clients with real estate transactions and litigation. Please reach out with any questions.

Hannes Zetzsche
Wesley Jansen, Summer Associate