No. 20-321

Walter D. Barnette v. HBI, L.L.C., et al.

Lower Court: Nebraska
Docketed: 2020-09-10
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-foreclosure constitutional-rights due-process notice notice-requirements property-notice property-rights reasonable-steps takings windfall windfall-incentive
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2021-02-19 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Nebraska Supreme Court err in holding that the due process requirements announced in Jones v. Flowers apply only to land containing homes?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006), this Court held that “when mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, the State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so.” Here, Walter Barnette owed $1,180 in property taxes and interest on his undeveloped land valued at $25,000 in Sarpy County, Nebraska. Sarpy County sold that debt to a private investor. Nebraska law required the investor to send notice to Barnette, warning that if he failed to pay his debt, the County would administratively foreclose and _ transfer absolute title to the investor. The investor sent notice to Barnette’s correct address in Council Bluffs, Iowa, by certified mail, which was returned unclaimed. The investor—who stood to profit more by taking title to the property than by receiving payment for the debt— published a notice in a Sarpy County newspaper and took no other steps to notify Barnette. The Nebraska Supreme Court held this satisfied due process. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Nebraska Supreme Court err in holding that the due process requirements announced in Jones apply only to land containing homes? 2. Does due process require a court to consider the potential windfall incentive of the party providing notice, and the magnitude of the owner’s deprivation, when balancing “all the circumstances” to determine if attempts at notice are reasonable and what “one desirous of actually informing the absentee” would use? Jones, 547 U.S. at 225. ii LIST OF ALL PARTIES Petitioner Walter D. Barnette was the appellant in the Nebraska Supreme Court and defendant and counter-claimant in the trial court. Respondent HBI, L.L.C., was the appellee in the Nebraska Supreme Court and plaintiff and counterdefendant in the trial court. Respondents County of Sarpy, Nebraska, Jim L. Kuhn, and Edward Swaney were appellees in the Nebraska Supreme Court and defendants in the trial court. RULE 14.1(b) (iii) STATEMENT The proceedings in the Supreme Court of Nebraska and the District Court of Sarpy County, Nebraska, identified below are directly related to the above-captioned case in this Court. HBI, L.L.C. v. Walter D. Barnette, Case No. S-19147 (Neb.), Opinion filed April 10, 2020, affirming judgment of District Court. HBI, L.L.C. v. Walter D. Barnette, Case No. A-190147 (Neb. Ct. App.), transferred to the Nebraska Supreme Court before decision. HBI, L.L.C. v. Walter D. Barnette, Case No. D59CI170001038 (Neb. Dist. Ct. Sarpy County), Opinion and Order filed Jan. 15, 2019, Granting Plaintiffs Amended Second Motion for Summary Judgment.

Docket Entries

2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-13
Reply of petitioner Walter D. Barnette filed. (Distributed)
2021-01-12
Corporate Disclosure Statement filed with respect to brief in opposition of respondent HBI, L.L.C.
2021-01-04
Brief of respondent HBI, L.L.C. in opposition filed.
2021-01-04
Brief of respondent County of Sarpy, Nebraska in opposition filed.
2020-12-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 4, 2021, for all respondents.
2020-11-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 2, 2020 to January 4, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 4, 2021, for all respondents.
2020-11-20
Motion of County of Sarpy, NE to extend the time to file a response from December 2, 2020 to January 4, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-02
Response Requested. (Due December 2, 2020)
2020-10-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
2020-10-01
Waiver of right of respondent County of Sarpy, Nebraska to respond filed.
2020-09-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 13, 2020)

Attorneys

County of Sarpy, Nebraska
Andrea Gosnold-ParkerSarpy County Attorney, Respondent
Andrea Gosnold-ParkerSarpy County Attorney, Respondent
Andrea Gosnold-ParkerSarpy County Attorney, Respondent
HBI, L.L.C.
Michael Sean DeganDvorak Law Group, LLC, Respondent
Michael Sean DeganDvorak Law Group, LLC, Respondent
Jeffrey J. BlumelDvorak Law Group, Respondent
Jeffrey J. BlumelDvorak Law Group, Respondent
Walter D. Barnette
Christina Marie MartinPacific Legal Foundation, Petitioner
Christina Marie MartinPacific Legal Foundation, Petitioner