Wood v. Bass
| Decision Date | 16 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. A-21-145.,A-21-145. |
| Citation | 30 Neb.App. 391,969 N.W.2d 678 |
| Parties | Amber J. WOOD, appellant, v. Kenneth A. BASS, appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
Michael F. Polk, of Watke, Polk & Sena, L.L.P., Omaha, for appellant.
Jonathan M. Brown, of Walentine O'Toole, L.L.P., Omaha, for appellee.
Amber J. Wood appeals from a decision of the district court for Sarpy County which affirmed the county court's determination that Wood was not entitled to relief pursuant to her action brought under the Disposition of Personal Property Landlord and Tenant Act (Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 69-2301 to 69-2314 (Reissue 2018 & Cum. Supp. 2020). The county court dismissed the case, finding that Wood did not establish that she and Kenneth A. Bass had formed a landlord-tenant relationship. As a result, she was not entitled to relief under the Act. The district court affirmed. Upon appeal to this court, Wood argues that the lower courts erred in determining that a landlord-tenant relationship did not exist between the parties. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Wood and Bass met in 2013 and became involved in an "arranged" and, at times, romantic relationship. In 2016, Bass invited Wood and her daughter to move into his residence with him. The parties’ relationship soured thereafter and ended early in 2017. Bass left the residence temporarily and sought to remove Wood from the residence. On March 29, Bass provided Wood with a "30 Day Notice to Terminate Lease," requesting Wood to vacate the residence by May 1. On June 14, Bass initiated eviction proceedings by filing a complaint for restitution. In October, Wood vacated the residence involuntarily, but left a significant amount of her personal property inside. Bass did not initially grant Wood access to the residence in order for her to retrieve her property. Property belonging to Wood was placed in the garage by Bass and representatives of Wood were then allowed to remove it. However, once she was able to see her property, Wood noticed that some items were damaged and other items she believed to be hers were missing.
On October 12, 2017, Wood filed a complaint pursuant to the Act requesting damages equal to the value of the unreturned personal property, which she asserted was approximately $110,202. Attached to her complaint was a list of the property that she alleged was still in Bass’ possession, including multiple beds, televisions, area rugs, furniture, and other items which remained in Bass’ residence. Bass filed an answer denying the allegations and filed a counterclaim alleging that Wood was wrongfully withholding Bass’ personal property and requesting that Wood return any of his personal property in her possession. Trial was ultimately held on June 29, 2020, wherein both Wood and Bass testified.
Wood described her relationship with Bass. She explained that she and Bass had an "arranged" relationship, wherein she would be a companion to Bass for trips and other events. In exchange, Bass would purchase gifts for her. She also explained that she and Bass engaged in physical intimacy and professed that they loved each other. In 2016, Bass approached Wood about moving into his residence.
Wood testified as to her understanding of the agreement that persuaded her to move into Bass’ residence. Wood explained that when Bass approached her about moving into his residence in 2016, they had not been speaking to each other. According to Wood, she and Bass reached an agreement wherein she and her daughter would live in Bass’ house until Wood's daughter graduated from high school, even if their relationship ended. She further explained that to live there, she agreed to be involved with Bass exclusively, to continue to be his companion for events and trips, and to fulfill various household duties. She conceded that she did not sign a lease prior to moving in.
Bass also testified regarding the arrangement he reached with Wood to live in his residence. Bass explained that he asked Wood to live with him in an effort to reconcile their relationship because he considered himself to be in love with Wood. He did not have an expectation that Wood would pay money for rent nor did he have her sign a lease. He testified that Wood never paid any money for rent. He noted that while Wood lived at the residence, he continued to live there and did not feel like he was excluded from the residence. When their romantic relationship ended in 2017, he attempted to remove her from his residence. He consulted a lawyer about the quickest way to remove Wood. He was advised that the quickest way was to give her a 30-day notice to terminate the lease and to file a complaint for restitution of the premises. However, Bass explained that when he signed the 30-day notice to terminate the lease, he did not believe that he was Wood's landlord.
Wood testified that prior to Bass’ efforts to remove her, Bass had left the residence. She received the 30-day notice to terminate the lease in March 2017. The 30-day notice to terminate the lease stated the following:
However, Wood did not leave the residence by May 1, 2017, because, as she testified at trial, she believed that she had an agreement to live in the house even if the relationship failed. Bass then filed a complaint for restitution in June 2017, in which he attached the 30-day notice to terminate the lease. His complaint for restitution stated that "[p]ursuant to a prior agreement, [Wood] is residing at [Bass’] residence" and prayed for relief including possession of the premises. Although our record contains multiple motions to continue and orders with respect to the motions to continue, our record does not reflect if there was ever a restitution hearing or a judgment entered which granted possession of the residence to Bass. Wood testified that she could not remember if there was a hearing regarding restitution in the eviction proceedings because there had been so many delays. Nevertheless, Wood testified that the police removed her daughter from the residence in October 2017 and that Wood was also barred from the residence. After leaving the residence, she continued to have discussions with Bass regarding possible arrangements if she wanted to stay in the house. When she was barred from the residence, she left a significant amount of property behind. Wood testified that Bass would not, initially, let her back into the residence to retrieve her personal property. She emailed Bass a list of property items that she wanted to retrieve. Although at trial Wood could not remember the date, she testified she was eventually allowed to retrieve the property Bass had placed in the garage. Wood's uncle testified that he was allowed to go into the house and retrieve some items belonging to Wood's daughter.
When Wood arrived at the residence, she observed that much of her property had been relocated to the garage. Upon opening the garage door, she observed that her property was in boxes and storage tubs that were stacked on top of each other. In addition, she observed damage to some of the items of property, including to some of her furniture. She created a list of property that was missing from the garage or that was damaged, which list was received into evidence. According to this list, she was missing numerous items of furniture, electronics, jewelry, and other items.
Bass testified that all of Wood's property was removed from the house and placed in the garage on October 20, 2017. At that point, the property was made available to Wood. He testified that there was never an expectation Wood would pay rent and that no lease existed. He was never precluded from entering the residence, but did seek to remove Wood once the relationship ended. While he agreed that he signed documents identifying himself as "landlord," he never believed that the nature of their relationship was that of a landlord and tenant. He testified that he signed the documents on the advice of former counsel.
The county court determined that, in order for Wood to recover under §§ 69-2311 and 69-2312 of the Act, there must be a landlord-tenant relationship, which Wood failed to prove. The county court relied on Reeder v. Reeder , 217 Neb. 120, 348 N.W.2d 832 (1984), in determining that the parties did not impliedly create a landlord-tenant relationship, but instead lived together pursuant to a mutual agreement to live informally with each other as long as their interests remained similar. The county court dismissed Wood's complaint to recover damages and dismissed Bass’ counterclaim requesting his personal property.
Wood appealed to the district court alleging that the county court erred in dismissing Wood's complaint. Specifically, Wood alleged that the county court erred in failing to find Wood and Bass were in a landlord-tenant relationship. Wood argued that Bass was precluded from asserting that there was no landlord-tenant relationship because he judicially admitted that he was the landlord in the course of the eviction proceedings. Wood also argued that the eviction proceedings conclusively established that Bass was a landlord and Wood was a tenant; thus, Bass was estopped, as a matter of law, from relitigating the tenancy issues between the parties.
The district court affirmed the decision of the county court finding that Wood and Bass did not have a landlord-tenant relationship. First, the district court found that Wood failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cmty. First Bank v. First Cent. Bank McCook
-
Johnson v. Frakes
...was in privity with a party to the prior action, and (4) there was an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue in the prior action. Id. Issue preclusion applies only to issues actually litigated. Id. In Johnson's present mandamus action, he raised the issue of whether L.B. 567 was......