Quandt and Reilly recognized by Best Lawyers® in America 2023

Matthew Quandt and Matt Reilly of Erickson | Sederstrom

Erickson | Sederstrom is proud to announce Matt Quandt and Matt Reilly were recognized by Best Lawyers® in America 2023. They were both selected by their peers and included in the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America™ 2023. These awards are recognitions given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in America. Matt Quandt was selected for his work in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants. His practice concentrates on trucking accidents, including wrongful death and personal injury; he represents some of the biggest motor carriers and insurers in the nation. Matt Reilly was selected for his work in Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants and Construction. The two main focuses of Mr. Reilly’s practice are in representing contractors across Iowa and Nebraska in construction disputes and in defending complex and severe personal injury claims.

E|S Successful Before Nebraska Supreme Court In Construction Site Accident Case

In Porter v. Knife River, Inc., the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court for Thurston County’s grant of summary judgment to D.P. Sawyer, Inc., a traffic control and highway striping company. 310 Neb. 946 (2022).  Erickson | Sederstrom’s attorneys aided in the summary judgment and appeal process. 

In the case, the administrator of decedent’s estate sued D.P. Sawyer, along with several other construction contractors, alleging negligent maintenance of a construction site.  The administrator’s claim arose when an Omaha Tribal Police officer bypassed warning signals and road barricades along a highway closed for construction.  The officer then tragically collided with a large crane parked on the closed highway.  The administrator argued the contractors were liable for negligence because the crane was left on the highway without adequate illumination, barricades, or other traffic control, which allegedly caused decedent’s death. 

E|S attorneys argued defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the administrator failed to prove a prima facie case of negligence and that the decedent assumed the risk of harm involved when he bypassed the road barricades.  The Honorable John E. Samson, District Judge, agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.  The administrator appealed.

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, determining that barricades placed at the termini of a closed highway need not absolutely prevent entrance to the construction area.  Highway contractors are not statutorily required to place additional signals at the termini of a closed highway notifying drivers that the highway utilizes dangerous machinery and may contain potential defects.  This is because warning signals and barricades at the termini thereof already give drivers notice that the highway is under construction and the condition of the highway itself shows that it is under various stages of completion. 

Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the district court's order granting summary judgment because they offered evidence showing they exercised ordinary care under Nebraska law. 

Erickson | Sederstrom’s experienced litigation group has a long history of success in defending claims arising out of construction projects, vehicle accidents, and all types of injury accidents.  Ross M. Serena or E|S’s litigation attorneys can be reached at 402-397-2200.

Thanks to E|S law clerk Rob Toth for his assistance in preparing the above analysis!

Erickson|Sederstrom Elects Matt Quandt and Shay Garvin as Partners; Connor Orr Joins the Firm

ERICKSON | SEDERSTROM is pleased to announce that MATTHEW D. QUANDT and SHAY GARVIN have been elected Partners and CONNOR W. ORR has joined the firm as an Associate.

Matt has been with the firm for two years, before which he litigated at a reputable Kansas City firm. His practice focuses on civil litigation, including catastrophic injury and wrongful death, trucking and transportation, construction defect, product liability, and professional liability. He is also a member of TIDA (the Trucking Industry Defense Association). He received his J.D. from the Washburn University School of Law (cum laude) and his B.S. from Baker University (cum laude). He is admitted to practice law in the state and federal courts of Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri.

Shay has been with the firm since 2019. Prior to joining Erickson | Sederstrom, he practiced for several years with a nationally recognized firm in Lincoln. Shay focuses his practice on transactional areas, including mergers and acquisitions, business formation, securities offerings, debt and equity financing, and general counsel. Shay also has extensive experience in the transportation industry and is active in the Nebraska logistics community. He received his J.D. and M.B.A. in 2015 from the University of Nebraska and his B.A./B.S. from the University of Arizona. He is admitted to practice law in Nebraska.

Connor has joined the firm representing both individual and commercial clients for litigation and general counsel matters. Connor graduated from Creighton University Magna Cum Laude in 2014 with a Bachelor’s degree in Economics, then went on to obtain his Juris Doctorate from the Creighton University School of Law in 2017. He is a member of both the Nebraska and Iowa State bars, and has extensive litigation experience representing clients in both state and federal courts for matters including commercial contract disputes, insurance defense, personal injury, construction defects, product liability, wrongful death, trucking and transportation, and disputes concerning both commercial and residential real estate. He also has experience providing estate and business planning services, providing advice to help guide families and small, local business owners through both prosperous and difficult times.

The Acquired Immunity Doctrine – Will the Nebraska Supreme Court Take the Next Step and Adopt the Entire Doctrine?

The acquired immunity doctrine is an affirmative defense that may be available to state construction contractors that are sued by a third party for alleged construction plan design defects.  Here is the scenario: The Nebraska Department of Transportation (“Department”) contracts with a road contractor to remove and replace part of a state highway.  The Department designs the construction plans and requires the contractor to follow the plans as designed.  Part of the construction plans include a traffic control plan.  The traffic control plan complies with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”).  Traffic control is subcontracted to a traffic control manager.  The traffic control subcontractor has no discretion to deviate from the traffic control plan and must set up all traffic devices at the required locations as the Department orders. The subcontractor sets up the traffic devices as the traffic control plan requires.  

Subsequently, a third party is injured in the construction zone and alleges that additional or different traffic devices should have been used on the project.  The Department retains its sovereign immunity because: 1) the Department’s choice of devices was discretionary, and a matter of engineering judgment; and, 2) under Nebraska’s State Tort Claim Act, the Department retains its sovereign immunity for “Plans for Construction of or improvement to highways.” See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 81-8,219 (9) & (11) (Reissue 2014). Yet, the subcontractor is sued for the traffic plans’ alleged design defects even though the Department designed the plan and is immune from liability. Can the subcontractor raise the Department’s sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense?  The answer is “yes,” and the defense is called the “acquired immunity doctrine.”  

The acquired immunity doctrine “provides that a contractor who performs its work according to the terms of its contract with a governmental agency, and under the governmental agency’s direct supervision, is not liable for damages resulting from its performance.” Lopez v. Mendez, 432 F.3d 829, 833 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Smith v. Rogers Group, Inc., 348 Ark. 241, 72 S.W.3d 450, 455 (2002)) (emphasis added). “Thus, if damages result from the contractor’s performance of a construction contract with the state, ‘and the damages result from something inherent in the design and specifications required by the public agency, the contractor is not liable unless he is negligent or guilty of a wrongful tort.’” Lopez, 432 F.3d at 833 (quoting Guerin Contractors, Inc. v. Reaves, 270 Ark. 710, 606 S.W.2d 143, 144 (1980)). “The purpose of the doctrine is to protect an ‘innocent contractor who has completely performed the work to the government’s plans and specifications.’” Lopez, (quoting Smith, 72 S.W.3d at 456).

The Nebraska Supreme Court has not yet adopted the acquired immunity doctrine.  But the Supreme Court has adopted the immunity’s fundamental concept. That is, the Supreme Court has said “where a construction contractor follows plans and specifications supplied by the owner which later prove to be defective or insufficient, [the contractor] is not responsible to the owner for loss or damage resulting therefrom as a consequence of the defectiveness or insufficiency of such plans and specifications.” Lindsay Mfg. Co. v. Universal Sur. Co., 246 Neb. 495, 506-07, 519 N.W.2d 530, 539-40 (1994); see also Langel Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc. v. Midwest Bridge & Constr. Co., 213 Neb. 283, 287, 329 N.W.2d 97, 100-01 (1983) (citations omitted); Central Neb. Pub. Power & Irr. Dist. v. Tobin Quarries, Inc., 157 F.2d 482, 485-86 (8th Cir. 1946) (applying Nebraska law); State v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 125 Neb. 43, 50, 248 N.W. 807, 808-09 (1933).

This is the acquired immunity doctrine. Furthermore, although the Nebraska’s State Tort Claims Act excludes independent contractors from the term “state agency,” “the acquired-immunity doctrine creates an exception to this rule.” See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8,210(1); see also Lopez, 432 F.3d at 833. The reason for the exception “is to protect an ‘innocent contractor who has completely performed the work to the government’s plans and specifications.’” Lopez, 432 F.3d at 833 (quoting Smith, 72 S.W.3d at 456).  In fact, other jurisdictions with tort claims acts like Nebraska’s Act and that have the same “state agency” exclusion for contractors as Nebraska’s Act, still have adopted the acquired immunity doctrine to protect innocent contractors that follow the state’s construction plans. See id. at 833-34 (discussing the acquired immunity doctrine under Arkansas law); see also McLain v. State, 563 N.W.2d 600, 605 (Iowa 1997); Fraker v. C.W. Matthews Contracting Co., Inc., 272 Ga. App. 807, 614 S.E.2d 94 (2005); Garrett Freightlines v. Bannock Paving Co., 112 Idaho 722, 731, 735 P.2d 1033, 1042 (1987).

For example, the Iowa State Tort Claims Act also excludes independent contractors from the term “state agency.” I.C.A § 669.2(5). But the Iowa Supreme Court nevertheless adopted the acquired immunity doctrine to protect its independent contractors from liability. Specifically, in McLain v. State, supra, the plaintiffs sued the State of Iowa, its general contractors, and a subcontractor working in an interstate construction zone. The plaintiffs claimed that the construction zone was unreasonably dangerous because the traffic warning signs failed to warn motorists of traffic congestion. McLain, 563 N.W.2d at 601. The district court granted the general contractor and subcontractor summary judgment under the acquired immunity doctrine and in affirming summary judgment, the Iowa Supreme Court held:

The rule is well established that a contractor for the State is not liable to a third party for damages if the contractor complies with the State’s plans and specifications and is not negligent in performing its work . . . . In other words, in those situations the contractor shares the same immunity as the State.

* * *

Here, the evidence in the record reflects that [the general contractors and subcontractor] complied with all State plans and specifications and did not perform their work in a negligent manner. Throughout the project, the State controlled all decisions regarding the placement and installation of the traffic control devices. [The subcontractor] installed the warning signs as it contracted to, and on the day of the accident, the signs were in their proper locations and in complete working order.

Id. at 605 (citations omitted).

The Iowa court also noted that monitoring the effectiveness of the signs was “part of the decision-making process of whether to install additional signs,” which was a decision retained by the State and immunized by statute. Id. The Iowa Supreme Court then held that “[b]ecause [the general contractors and the subcontractor] complied with the State’s contract specifications, we conclude as a matter of law that they may share immunity with the State . . . .” Id.

            Here, like McLain, the subcontractor in our scenario followed the traffic control plan and the traffic plan complied with the MUTCD.  Also, the third-party’s claim that the traffic control plan should have included different or additional traffic devices is a claim against the Department because the Department designed the Traffic Plan —not the subcontractor. The Department, however, is immune from liability because: 1) the traffic plan’s design was a matter of engineering judgment; and, 2) the traffic plan was part of the Project’s “Plans for Construction” for a highway improvement. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 81-8,219 (9) & (11). Thus, the subcontractor is cloaked in the Department’s sovereign immunity because it “complied with all State plans and specifications and did not perform their work in a negligent manner. [And] [t]hroughout the project, the Department controlled all decisions regarding the placement and installation of the traffic control devices.” McLain, 563 N.W.2d at 605.

            Now, we need the right case to be taken to the Nebraska Supreme Court.  And remember, in Nebraska you can now file an interlocutory appeal on an order denying summary judgment based on the assertion of sovereign immunity.  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902.  

Post-Loss Assignments of Benefits: An Easier Way for Contractors to Get Paid

Contractors face an endless stretch of legal and business hurdles on a daily basis. They have to deal with weather, safety, personnel, material acquisition, permits, and needy homeowners. But, getting paid on residential construction work covered by a homeowner’s insurance policy should not be one of those hurdles because there is an easier way for contractors to get paid.

When a homeowner suffers a loss covered by their insurance policy, they have the right to assign their insurance benefits to the contractor making the repairs to their home. By doing this, the homeowner authorizes the insurance company to make the contractor a co-payee for that loss.

In most states, the law permits contractors to ask homeowners to assign their post-loss benefits to the contractor for the work they bid. This allows the contractor to receive payment directly from the homeowner’s insurance company. And, most importantly, helps the contractor avoid those dreaded situations where a homeowner receives their insurance payout but refuses to pay their contractor for its work.

Contractors, however, must beware of the many pitfalls that they can fall into with these post-loss assignments of benefit agreements. Failure to follow laws designed to protect insured homeowners can lead to a contractor’s entire contract becoming voided.

For example, a post-loss assignment of benefits has to be a written agreement. That agreement must contain certain language as set forth by statute, and the contractor has to place the homeowner’s insurance on notice of the assignment within a certain number of days depending on the jurisdiction.

Contractors also have to be careful not take certain forbidden actions on behalf of the homeowner. Some states like Iowa forbid a contractor from negotiating with a homeowner’s insurance company on the homeowner’s behalf. Other states strictly forbid a residential contractor from offering rebates on their deductible as an incentive for choosing their construction company for their job. Mistakes like these can cause a court to find the residential contractor’s entire agreement is void and unenforceable.

Finally, post-loss assignment of benefits under an insurance policy must include specific language depending on the jurisdiction that the contract is contemplated. For example, in Nebraska, a contractor must include the following language in all caps and in 14 pt. font for its assignment to be proper:

YOU ARE AGREEING TO ASSIGN CERTAIN RIGHTS YOU HAVE UNDER YOUR INSURANCE POLICY. WITH AN ASSIGNMENT, THE RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE ENTITLED TO PURSUE ANY RIGHTS OR REMEDIES THAT YOU, THE INSURED HOMEOWNER, HAVE UNDER YOUR INSURANCE POLICY. PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE SIGNING.

THE INSURER MAY ONLY PAY FOR THE COST TO REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED PROPERTY CAUSED BY A COVERED PERIL, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE POLICY.

IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE INSURANCE LAWS OF NEBRASKA TO REBATE ANY PORTION OF AN INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE AS AN INDUCEMENT TO THE INSURED TO ACCEPT A RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL TO REPAIR DAMAGED PROPERTY. REBATE OF A DEDUCTIBLE INCLUDES GRANTING ANY ALLOWANCE OR OFFERING ANY DISCOUNT AGAINST THE FEES TO BE CHARGED FOR WORK TO BE PERFORMED OR PAYING THE INSURED HOMEOWNER THE DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT SET FORTH IN THE INSURANCE POLICY.

THE INSURED HOMEOWNER IS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THE DEDUCTIBLE. THE INSURANCE FRAUD ACT AND NEBRASKA CRIMINAL STATUTES PROHIBIT THE INSURED HOMEOWNER FROM ACCEPTING FROM A RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTOR A REBATE OF THE DEDUCTIBLE OR OTHERWISE ACCEPTING ANY ALLOWANCE OR DISCOUNT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTOR TO COVER THE COST OF THE DEDUCTIBLE. VIOLATIONS MAY BE PUNISHABLE BY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

The contractor must have the homeowner sign and date below this language as well. Then, after the  post-loss assignment of benefits is executed, a residential contractor in Nebraska must provide a copy of the assignment to the homeowner’s insurance company within five business days.

By taking advantage of post-loss assignments of rights under an insurance policy, contractors can keep revenue streams open cand collections moving. And often times, these simple assignments can help a contractor avoid the headache of executing liens as well. Residential contractors, however, should remember that contracts can be tricky. Assignments like the one described above need to be properly incorporated into the contractor’s underlying contract and those contracts need to meet all necessary formalities under the law to be binding. Therefore, contractors should never hesitate to reach out to a construction lawyer who is familiar with construction contracts and litigation when they have questions about their contracts.

Solar Land Leases

Most Nebraskans and Iowans have become accustomed to seeing wind farms popping up across the prairies of the Midwest. However, fewer of us may realize that solar farms, which are large-scale, ground-mounted arrays of photovoltaic (PV) panels, are emerging as a potential renewable energy alternative to wind power.  Consequently, landowners in certain areas are being approached by developers of solar farms to discuss a potential lease of their land for the housing of a solar farm.

 The use of solar energy is on the rise in the United States and in Nebraska.  In fact, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, solar energy production in Nebraska is expected to increase over 500% during the next five years.  The increase is due to two main factors.  One factor is the tax incentives offered by state and federal governments that help offset the cost of solar development (which incentives may be increased further under a Biden administration).  The other factor is that the cost of PV cells has decreased significantly over the last few years (and will likely continue to decrease).  

 The rapid growth of solar energy production has caused owners of large tracts of land (including farmers) to consider whether alternative uses of their land may bring them a higher rate of return.  However, solar farm developers are generally very selective when choosing potential land for a solar farm.  The primary criteria such developers use when choosing land are (i) frequency of sunlight (including the absence of sunlight blocking obstructions), (ii) proximity to important infrastructure like roads and grid connection points and (iii) quality of terrain (flat and free from large rocks is most desirable).   When a developer does find land that meets these criteria, it may aggressively pursue a long-term “solar lease” with the owner of the land for the development of a solar farm.  In these instances, a landowner should seek the advice of legal counsel before entering into a solar lease, as it will affect the use of and earnings from the land for generations.  Items to consider prior to agreeing to a solar lease include the following:

1.      Lease Term – Due to the significant investment made by the developer, solar leases are generally going to be for at least 20 years, during which time the land will be unavailable for other purposes.  Thus, a landowner should ensure he or she is willing to devote the land for this use for the entire length of the lease.  Solar leases may also include options by the developer to extend the term of the lease and/or obtain rights to use additional land owned by the landowner.  These terms should be negotiated carefully, and the implications should be fully understood by the landowner.    

 2.      Compensation – Landowners should be particularly careful about the way their compensation is structured.  A flat rental rate will provide a landowner with a steady and certain income stream on the land.  However, a developer may try to structure all or a portion of the rent based on the developer’s income and/or revenue.  This is generally ill-advised to the extent it can be avoided, as it reduces the certainty of income to the landowner.

 3.      Landowner Remedies – A landowner should ensure he or she will have a sufficient remedy in the event of a breach of the solar lease by the developer.  Developers may be newer companies without significant assets.  To the extent possible, a landowner should seek parent/owner guarantees and/or security deposits for his or her protection in the event the developer fails to fulfill its obligations under the solar lease.

 4.      Rights of Others – Mortgages, deeds of trust, farm leases and other rights in the landowner’s property that may be granted to others could preclude granting a solar lease on the land.  A landowner should ensure that no such other rights in the land have been granted that could conflict with the solar lease.  Failure to do so could cause a landowner to be in breach of other agreements and/or the solar lease, resulting in significant costs to the landowner.

 5.      Land Impact – The installation of a solar farm may cause long-term damage to the soil and/or irrigation systems of farmland.  It may take considerable time and expense after the termination of a solar lease and removal of equipment for the land to be returned to a condition suitable for crop production.  The allocation of the costs of returning the land to such condition should be addressed in the solar lease.

6.      Taxes – Solar leases may impact the classification of land as agricultural for tax purposes. This can increase a landowner’s taxes going forward, and may result in recapture of prior tax reductions.  A landowner should understand the tax impact of any solar arrangement and the lease should allocate which party is responsible for taxes during the lease term, including any tax increases. 

 7.      Risk and Insurance – The lease should include customary indemnification and allocation of risk provisions.  The parties should also ensure that adequate insurance is carried by both to cover such obligations.

 8.      Maintenance – The developer is typically going to be the party that is responsible for maintaining the solar equipment, but the lease should also clearly specify which party is charged with maintaining access to such equipment and/or the area surrounding the solar equipment.

 9.      Community Perceptions – A landowner should consider how a solar lease may impact his or her relationship with the community.  Community members may object to the installation of a solar farm in their community for a variety of reasons.  These include (i) opposition to the appearance of solar panels on the landscape, (ii) concern over the impact  the construction and maintenance of a solar farm may have on neighboring properties (including property values) and (iii) distrust of outside developers.

Entering into a solar lease is a major decision, and landowners should not take entering into one lightly.  If you have any questions regarding a potential solar lease on your land, please contact a member of our Real Estate group.

The material in this publication was created as of the date set forth above and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on specific facts. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and the transmission and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship.

Nebraska Supreme Court Clarifies Enforcement of Covenants Regarding Homeowners’ Associations

Erickson | Sederstrom's attorneys’ have extensive background in real estate disputes.  If faced with a difficult issue involving real estate – including conveyances, development, zoning, construction, property tax, or other issues – we recommend you contact our office and speak with one of our attorneys. 

 Real estate developments typically are governed by covenants that require or prohibit certain actions by property owners.  To be enforceable, covenants must involve issues that “touch and concern” the land.  The “touch and concern” element of real property covenants has been convoluted in its development.  The Nebraska Supreme Court recently narrowed the interpretation of this element as applied to communities governed by a homeowners’ association (“HOA”).  See Equestrian Ridge Homeowners Ass'n v. Equestrian Ridge Estates II Homeowners Ass'n, 308 Neb. 128, 146 (2021).  Specifically, the court determined that the “touch and concern” element may be satisfied as applied to communities governed by an HOA when the “burden” of HOA payments is afforded to a “benefit” that is: (1) considered a necessity to the community; and (2) increases the value of the community’s lots.

 Facts

 In Equestrian Ridge Homeowners Ass'n v. Equestrian Ridge Estates II Homeowners Ass'n, the Nebraska Supreme Court decided a dispute between two neighboring HOAs involving real covenants running at law in a neighborhood near Gretna, Nebraska.  The covenants addressed requirements to maintain a street.

 In 2004, Ted Grace (“Grace”) and Duane Dowd (“Dowd”) owned contiguous tracks of land near Gretna.  Together, Grace and Dowd agreed to grant their respective tracts of land to Equestrian Ridge, an L.L.C. established by Grace and Dowd, and develop the tracts into residential subdivisions.  Subsequently, Grace and Dowd executed an additional agreement to develop Grace’s tract (“Equestrian Ridge Estates”) first, then Dowd’s tract (“Dowd Grain Subdivision”) thereafter.  All fifteen lots in Equestrian Ridge Estates were sold and were subject to the authority of its HOA through a series of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&R’s”).  During the development of Dowd Grain Subdivision, the parties determined that Shiloh Road, the only accessible pathway to the Subdivision, terminated at a dead end; therefore, the parties decided to improve accessibility to the Subdivision by “extending Shiloh Road past its dead end to the west, across the border with” Equestrian Ridge Estates.  This agreement was evidenced by Dowd’s promise to subject Dowd Grain Subdivision and its forthcoming HOA, through a series of CC&R’s, “to a sharing of one third of the costs and expenses for the repair and maintenance of 232d Street within Equestrian Ridge Estates.”

 After developing several lots within Dowd Grain Subdivision and renaming the subdivision Equestrian Ridge Estates II, Dowd resigned from the HOA.  Thereafter, “[t]he board members of Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA formally accepted Dowd's relinquishment of all his interests and agreed to manage the subdivision, and contributed its share of maintenance costs to improve 232d Street.

 In early 2015, Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA “met to discuss major roadwork that was expected along 232d Street” and made several complaints, including “that when Equestrian Ridge Estates HOA made repairs to 232d Street, it did so without the input of Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA.”  Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA further complained “that they only ever learned about 232d Street maintenance projects upon receiving invoices from Equestrian Ridge Estates HOA, typically without any explanation about the maintenance for which they were being asked to contribute.”  Afterwards, Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA amended its CC&R’s “to remove any requirement of [their] lot owners to contribute to maintenance costs of 232d Street” and refused to contribute to road maintenance costs, while Equestrian Ridge Estates HOA paid the entire amount.  As a result, Equestrian Ridge Estates HOA filed suit against Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA to seek payment for the road maintenance costs pursuant to the covenants.

 Legal Conclusions

 The Nebraska Supreme Court held that Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA “was bound to contribute to 232d Street maintenance costs under the 2004 Agreement” because Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA “was a successor in interest of Dowd Grain Subdivision and, as such, was bound by the covenant at issue in the 2004 Agreement, which runs with the land in perpetuity.”  In support of its holding, the Nebraska Supreme Court set forth and applied the three requirements for a covenant to run with the land:

(1) The grantor and the grantee must have intended that the covenant run with the land, as determined from the instruments of record; (2) the covenant must touch and concern the land with which it runs; and (3) the party claiming the benefit of the covenant and the party who bears the burden of the covenant must be in privity of estate. 

 Applied here, the “intent to bind” element was met because it was contemplated in the 2004 agreement that the covenants at issue “would bind lot owners in the future.”  When considering the “touch and concern” element, the court noted that “it has been found impossible to state any absolute tests to determine what covenants touch and concern land and what do not.”  Therefore, this issue was “one for the court to determine in the exercise of its best judgment upon the facts of [the] case.”

 The Nebraska Supreme Court has adopted a clearer explanation of “what it means for a covenant to touch and concern the land.”  The “covenant must impose, on the one hand, a burden upon an interest in land, which on the other hand increases the value of a different interest in the same or related land.”  The “touch and concern” element is met in this instance because “[i]n exchange for the burden of being required to contribute to 232d Street maintenance costs, Dowd afforded Equestrian Ridge Estates II and its future lot owners the benefit of paved access across 232d Street to public roads.”

 Finally, the Nebraska Supreme Court distinguished and applied various definitions of “privity” when analyzing the third element of “privity of estate.”  See id. at 146-47.  In essence, “privity” can be “defined as mutual or successive relationships to the same right of property, or such an identification of interest of one person with another as to represent the same legal right or derivative interest . . . between parties.”  Id. at 147.  The “privity of estate” element is satisfied in this case because Equestrian Ridge Estates II, the same property that Dowd once owned, is now controlled by Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA and owned by Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA and Equestrian Ridge Estates II's lot owners.  Id.  Accordingly, “Dowd and these lot owners are successive owners of the same land pursuant to their deeds of purchase for the lots.”  Id. 

 Therefore, Dowd’s promise to subject his subdivision to a requirement to contribute to 232d Street maintenance costs at the time of the 2004 agreement “was a covenant that ran with the land.”  As a result, Equestrian Ridge Estates II HOA, as the successor in interest to Dowd, was bound to contribute to 232d Street maintenance costs.

 Future Developments for Covenants Running at Law as Applied to Communities Governed by an HOA

 Although the “touch and concern” element has been convoluted throughout its development, the Nebraska Supreme Court has now narrowed its interpretation of this element as applied to communities governed by an HOA.  Specifically, the court determined that the “touch and concern” element may be satisfied as applied to communities governed by an HOA when the “burden” of HOA payments is afforded to a “benefit” that is: (1) considered a necessity to the community; and (2) increases the value of the community’s lots, such as the street maintenance costs involved here. 

Nebraska Supreme Court Draws a Fine Line Between Federal and State Arbitration Laws in Home Sales

On any given day, millions of Americans are entering into contracts both big and small. Some of these contracts represent the terms and conditions for a major life decision for those people, while other contracts represent transactions that no one would give a second thought to. For example, as you are reading this article there is likely someone signing their name to a contract for a mortgage on the home they plan to raise their children in. Meanwhile someone somewhere else is agreeing to the terms and conditions of a mobile app designed to super impose animated animals over their face in a selfie. Regardless of the seriousness of the contract, people are more often than not agreeing to arbitration clauses that they never read.

Most people do not even realize that they are agreeing to arbitration clauses that will keep them out of the courthouse when they enter into these contracts. Even more people do not realize that arbitration is governed by one of two sets of laws in most cases, and parties who are not carefully drafting those clauses might find them unenforceable. Recently, in a nasty dispute between a property management company and a home buyer, the Nebraska Supreme Court in Garlock v. 3DS Properties, L.L.C., considered whether an arbitration clause found in the contract for the sale of a home was governed by Nebraska arbitration law or federal arbitration law.

In Garlock, the Garlocks purchased a home from 3DS Properties. The Garlocks later sued 3DS Properties for damages they alleged were caused by serious problems in the home which 3DS Properties did not disclose as required by law. The Garlocks brought this lawsuit in state court, and 3DS Properties sought to have it removed from state court and taken to arbitration. Both the Garlocks and 3DS Properties disagreed on where the Garlock’s claim should be considered. The dispute lasted several years until it eventually landed in the Nebraska Supreme Court. That dispute highlighted two important distinctions that should always be considered by anyone entering into a contract with an arbitration clause in Nebraska.

ATTENTION TO DETAIL REALLY MATTERS

Because the Garlocks wanted their case to be heard in state court rather than in an arbitration court, they argued that the arbitration clause in the contract between them and 3DS Properties was unenforceable under Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act. The Garlocks based this argument on the fact that the contract between them and 3DS Properties contained a clause above the signature line that read:

THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS AN ARBITRATION PROVISION WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES.

The Garlocks reasoned that because this notice was not underlined it was not enforceable under Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act. The Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act requires that all contracts with binding arbitration clauses include the above notice which must be capitalized and underlined in order to be enforceable. Because this notice was not underlined the Nebraska Supreme Court reasoned that, standing alone, the arbitration clause in the contract between the Garlocks and 3DS Properties was unenforceable on its face under Nebraska law.

This one minor detail was missed by 3DS Properties in the drafting of its real estate sale contract and highlights the importance of utilizing a qualified attorney in the contract review process. 3DS Properties was not without a strong counterargument, however.

ARBITRATION MATTERS ARE GOVERNED BY BOTH STATE & FEDERAL LAWS

3DS Properties badly wanted to have this dispute heard in arbitration court. To do this, 3DS Properties had to counter the Garlock’s argument that the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it failed to have an all capitalized and underlined notice. Rather than accepting Nebraska law as the governing choice of law, 3DS Properties argued that the arbitration clause governed by federal arbitration law and therefore did not have to include an underlined notice.

This argument was based on the Nebraska Supreme Court’s holding in Wilczewski v. Charter West National Bank where the Court held that federal arbitration laws applied to all contracts formed in interstate commerce under Title 9 of the United States Code. In cases where federal arbitration laws apply, contracts do not have to meet the requirements under Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act. In Wilczewski, the sale of a home under foreclosure contained an arbitration clause which the buyers argued was unenforceable under Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act. There, the Court reasoned that the arbitration clause did not have to comply with Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act because the sale of homes in foreclosure are done by banks who are integral parts of the stream of interstate commerce.

3DS Properties tried to harness this reasoning in their dispute against the Garlocks. The Nebraska Supreme Court, however, disagreed when they determined that the simple sale of a home, rather than a foreclosure done by a bank, was purely an intrastate activity rather than an interstate activity. In other words, contracts governing the sale of real estate in Nebraska which do not involve parties from other states or lenders from other states is considered an intrastate activity and must conform to the requirements of the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act for arbitration to be binding.

IMPORTANT TAKEAWAYS FROM THE GARLOCK CASE

First, the details really do matter. Whether you are drafting a contract, or you are agreeing to a contract someone else has drafted it is important to fully understand all terms, conditions, and laws that govern those terms and conditions. In the case of Garlock, the parties could have avoided thousands of dollars in expenses, and years of litigation by simply underlining a single sentence in their sale contract. Moreover, the parties could have saved a great deal of trouble by having a qualified attorney review their sales contract prior to its execution.

Second, the context of a contract can completely change the arbitration laws it is governed by. If you are a party who prefers arbitration over traditional litigation, it is imperative that you understand the context in which your contract is being executed. In Garlock, the parties were selling a home in a simple real estate transaction and therefore the arbitration laws of Nebraska applied to the formation of their contract. However, had these parties been using an out of state lender, or selling the property in a foreclosure, the federal arbitration laws would have applied to the formation of their contract.

If you are in the middle of trying to sort out the contents of an important contract, please do not go it alone unless you fully understand the legal ramifications of what you are drafting or agreeing to. If you have questions about contracts, the clauses in those contracts, or arbitration and arbitration clauses make sure you get in touch with a qualified attorney before it becomes a mess you cannot get out of.