Goldie v. McNeil & Co. Builders

- 84 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
James Goldie and Carol Goldie, husband and wife,
and the Carol J. Goldie and James Goldie Living
Trust, appellees, v. McNeil & Company Builders,
LLC, and McNeil Company, Inc., a Nebraska
corporation, appellants.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed March 27, 2026. 	No. S-24-944.
1. Equity: Quiet Title. A quiet title action sounds in equity.
2. Equity: Appeal and Error. On appeal from an equity action, an appel-
late court decides factual questions de novo on the record and, as to
questions of both fact and law, is obligated to reach a conclusion inde-
pendent of the trial court’s determination.
3. Equity: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In an appeal of an equity action,
where credible evidence is in conflict on a material question of fact, an
appellate court considers and may give weight to the fact that the trial
court heard and observed the witnesses and their manner of testifying
and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.
4. Adverse Possession: Proof: Time. A party claiming title through
adverse possession must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the adverse possessor has been in (1) actual, (2) continuous, (3) exclu-
sive, (4) notorious, and (5) adverse possession under a claim of owner-
ship for a statutory period of 10 years.
5. Adverse Possession: Notice. To be effective against the true owner, acts
of dominion over land allegedly adversely possessed must be so open,
notorious, and hostile as to put an ordinarily prudent person on notice of
the fact that the lands are in the adverse possession of another.
6. Adverse Possession. If an occupier’s physical actions on the land
constitute visible and conspicuous evidence of possession and use of
the land, such will generally be sufficient to establish that possession
was notorious.
7. ____. Although the enclosure of land renders the possession of land
open and notorious, and tends to show that it is exclusive, it is not the
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/18/2026 12:44 AM CDT

- 85 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
only way by which possession may be rendered open and notorious.
Nonenclosing improvements to land, such as erecting buildings or plant-
ing groves or trees, which show an intention to appropriate the land to
some useful purpose, are sufficient.
8. Adverse Possession: Words and Phrases. A possession that is adverse
is under a claim of ownership. Claim of ownership or claim of right
means “hostile,” and these terms describe the same element of adverse
possession. The word “hostile,” when applied to the possession of an
occupant of real estate holding adversely, is not to be construed as
showing ill will, or that the occupant is an enemy of the person holding
the legal title, but means an occupant who holds and is in possession as
owner and therefore against all other claimants of the land.
9. Adverse Possession: Notice. The purpose of prescribing the manner
in which an adverse holding will be manifested is to give notice to
the real owner that his or her title or ownership is in danger so that
the real owner may, within the period of limitations, take action to
protect his or her interest. It is the nature of the hostile possession that
constitutes the warning, not the intent of the claimant when he or she
takes possession.
10. Adverse Possession: Title. Permissive use of property can never ripen
into title by adverse possession unless there is a change in the nature
of possession brought to the attention of the owner in some plain
and unequivocal manner that the person in possession is claiming
adversely thereby.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: W.
Russell Bowie III, Judge. Affirmed.
David L. Welch and Maggie L. Brokaw, of Pansing Hogan
Ernst & Buser, L.L.P., for appellants.
Jay A. Ferguson for appellees.
Funke, 	C.J., 	Cassel, 	Stacy, 	Papik, 	Freudenberg,
Bergevin, and Vaughn, JJ.
Funke, C.J.
INTRODUCTION
McNeil & Company Builders, LLC, and McNeil Company,
Inc. (collectively the McNeil Companies), appeal the order
of the district court for Douglas County that quieted title

- 86 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
to certain property in the Carol J. Goldie and James Goldie
Living Trust (the Trust). The order quieting title had been
requested in a complaint filed by James Goldie and Carol
Goldie and the Trust (collectively the Goldies) in which they
set forth a claim to the property based on adverse possession.
The McNeil Companies challenge the district court’s finding
of adverse possession by the Goldies, and they specifically
challenge the findings that the possession was notorious and
that it was adverse under a claim of ownership. The McNeil
Companies argue, in part, that the possession was not adverse
because the Goldies’ use of the property was permissive.
The Goldies dispute that permission was given for their use
of the property, and they argue that even if permission had
been given as the McNeil Companies alleged, such permission
was given after the adverse possession had begun. The Goldies
contend that under Nebraska law, permission must be given
prior to the commencement of adverse possession to be effec-
tive against a claim of adverse possession. We affirm the dis-
trict court’s order.
BACKGROUND
The 	Goldies 	own 	real 	property 	in 	Omaha, 	Nebraska,
legally described as “Lot 30, Rose Garden Estates” (the
Goldie Property). The McNeil Companies own land adjacent
to the Goldie Property, legally described as “Lot 262, Rose
Garden Estates and Lot 2, [R]ose Garden Estates Replat 1,
an Administrative Replat of Lot 263, Rose Garden Estates”
(the McNeil Property). At dispute in this case is a portion
of the McNeil Property that abuts the southern border of the
Goldie Property (the Disputed Property).
Operative Amended Complaint
and Answer
The Goldies filed this action in 2022, seeking to quiet
title to the Disputed Property in their name. In the operative
amended complaint filed March 15, 2023, the Goldies set

- 87 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
forth a claim of adverse possession and requested as relief that
title to the Disputed Property be quieted in the Trust.
The 	Goldies 	alleged 	that 	James 	and 	Carol 	purchased
the Goldie Property in 1988 and transferred ownership of
the Goldie Property to the Trust in 2018. The Goldies alleged
that McNeil & Company Builders purchased the McNeil
Property from Westport Apartments, L.L.C., in 2004. In the
complaint, the Goldies described the Disputed Property as an
area south of the Goldie Property that extended 40 feet into
the McNeil Property on the southwest side and 50 feet into the
McNeil Property on the southeast side, with the two sides con-
nected by a line approximately 65 feet in length.
The Goldies alleged that they started using the Disputed
Property when they purchased their property in 1988 and
that in 1989, they put up a fence at the south end of an area
that extended 20 feet into the McNeil Property. They fur-
ther alleged that in 1989, they started intentionally using the
Disputed Property—which extended beyond the fence into
the McNeil Property—as their own property for recreational
purposes and maintained the land by mowing, fertilizing,
weeding, and caring for trees. They alleged that for a period
of 10 or more years thereafter, they had actual, continuous,
exclusive, notorious, and adverse possession of the Disputed
Property, and that both the McNeil Companies and their prede-
cessors in title failed to timely object to the Goldies’ use of the
land. The Goldies set forth various additional actions that they
alleged they had taken at their expense in the years following
1989 with respect to the Disputed Property.
The Goldies alleged that after the McNeil Companies pur-
chased the McNeil Property from Westport Apartments in
2004, the Goldies’ possession and use of the Disputed Property
would have been obvious to the casual observer. They alleged
that if a survey had been obtained by the McNeil Companies,
it would have shown that the Goldies’ use and possession of
the land extended into the McNeil Property and was adverse
to the McNeil Companies’ ownership. The Goldies further

- 88 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
alleged that in 2022, the McNeil Companies announced plans
to develop the McNeil Property, placed “No Trespassing”
signs on the Disputed Property, and sent correspondence
demanding that James and Carol remove their property from
the Disputed Property.
The McNeil Companies filed an answer to the Goldies’
amended complaint in which they alleged that the McNeil
Companies’ ownership and possession of the McNeil Property
began 	“in 	1997 	and 	started 	with 	Westport 	Apartments.”
Testimony at trial indicated that the McNeil Companies and
Westport Apartments had common owners and officers. The
McNeil Companies set forth various affirmative defenses,
including an allegation that in 1997, when the McNeil Property
was owned by Westport Apartments, Patrick McNeil (Patrick),
chief executive officer of the McNeil Companies and an owner
of Westport Apartments, sent letters by certified mail to adja-
cent property owners, including James. The letters stated that
previous owners of the McNeil Property had granted permis-
sion to adjacent property owners for limited use of portions
of the McNeil Property and that while Westport Apartments
planned to develop the McNeil Property and would discon-
tinue permissive use at that time, Westport Apartments would
allow limited permissive use to continue until then. The letters
requested adjacent property owners to sign an acknowledg-
ment and consent form and stated that if a property owner did
not sign the acknowledgment and consent form by a certain
date, Westport Apartments would take actions to prevent future
use or occupancy of the McNeil Property.
The Goldies’ Evidence at Trial
At trial, the Goldies presented evidence and testimony,
including testimony by both James and Carol. Carol testi-
fied extensively regarding the Goldies’ use of the Disputed
Property since they purchased the Goldie Property in 1988.
She testified as follows. When the Goldies first purchased
the Goldie Property, Carol observed the area south of their

- 89 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
lot to be “not cared for, . . . neglected and abandoned.” After
moving onto their property, the Goldies “proceeded to clear
[the Disputed Property] by treating the weeds; picking up the
limbs that had been laying in the area; cutting them and add-
ing them to the woodpile . . . and just continuing to work to
clean up the area so that [they] could plant grass seed.” At the
time the Goldies began clearing the Disputed Property in June
1988, they did not know who owned the land and did not have
permission from anyone to clear the area.
Having “put in a lot of hours and some money” to clear the
area, the Goldies decided they “should take over that property,
should own it,” so they “put up a post and rail fence 20 feet
south of [their] lot line.” Their purpose in putting up the fence
was “to keep [their] dog in and to keep others out” because
they had “planted grass and . . . wanted other people to know
that that was [their] property and to stay out.” At the time,
the Goldies knew where the lot line of the Goldie Property
was, and they had seen “No Trespassing” signs on the McNeil
Property. The Goldies did not do anything to obscure or hide
the fence, which they had put up in 1989. They were aware
that the fence was beyond their lot line and that they did not
have permission from anyone to put up the fence or otherwise
maintain the area.
After clearing the area south of their lot line, the Goldies
used the area for “family activities,” such as playing horse-
shoes and badminton and having barbecues and picnics. While
they had cleared some trees from the area, they kept certain
trees, including a large maple tree in which they built a tree-
house in 1989. The boundaries of the land in the Disputed
Property that the Goldies had cleared “were formed by where
[James] would mow.” James regularly mowed the Disputed
Property, and the mowing left visible ruts.
In addition to putting up a fence and building a treehouse,
the Goldies added landscaping to the Disputed Property that
was like landscaping they had done on the Goldie Property.
They planted a linden tree in the Disputed Property in 1998,

- 90 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
and it remained there until they had it removed after it was
struck by lightning in 2021. Carol began a garden on the
Disputed Property in 2009.
The Goldies removed the fence in 2004, because some
of the posts were decayed, they no longer had the dog, and
removing the fence “made it easier [to access] the rest of” the
Disputed Property. Carol gave examples of other work they
performed on the Disputed Property, including cleaning up
large tree limbs and branches that had fallen after a severe ice
storm in 1997, having a large pile of wood removed, remov-
ing the maple tree in 2005, having a diseased ash tree that
they had planted on the Disputed Property removed in 2019,
having the linden tree treated for Japanese beetle infestations
in 2019 and 2020, and having a sprinkler system installed on
their property in 2016 that ran underground into the McNeil
Property to the garden they had planted in the Disputed
Property. During Carol’s testimony, the court received into
evidence various photographs that Carol purported to depict
the condition of the Disputed Property and the Goldies’ use
of the Disputed Property on various dates since the Goldies
began using the area until more recent years.
Carol learned at a homeowners’ association meeting in 2022
that the McNeil Companies planned to develop the McNeil
Property. She became upset after learning that the develop-
ment plans included the Disputed Property, and she responded
by taking photographs of the Disputed Property to show that
the Goldies had maintained it in the same way they maintained
their own backyard. In December 2022, the Goldies received a
certified letter from the McNeil Companies giving them notice
to remove personal belongings, structures, or other items from
the McNeil Property.
Regarding the McNeil Companies’ defense that the Goldies
were given permission in a letter in 1997 to use the Disputed
Property, Carol testified that James had not ever told her
that he received such a letter. She also testified that no such
letter had been sent to her and that the McNeil Companies

- 91 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
asserted only that letters had been sent to James. She testi-
fied that since 1997 and until the notice in 2022, the McNeil
Companies had not done anything to dispossess the Goldies of
the Disputed Property.
James testified at the trial as follows. When the Goldies
purchased their property in 1988, the area south of the
Goldie Property was “[u]nkept, abandoned,” with “a lot of
debris that needed to be cleaned out.” The Goldies put up a
fence on the Disputed Property in 1989, and they put gates
in the fence so that they could access the rest of the Disputed
Property. After the Goldies removed the fence in 2004, they
continued to use the entirety of the Disputed Property. The
Goldies had improved the Disputed Property by adding trees,
landscaping, gardens, and bushes, and they had mowed and
fertilized the Disputed Property just as they had done in their
own backyard. Regarding the McNeil Companies’ defense
that the Goldies had been given permission by letter in 1997
to use the Disputed Property, James testified that he had not
received such a letter and that the first time he had learned
that a letter had allegedly been sent to him was during
this litigation.
The McNeil Companies’
Evidence at Trial
Evidence presented by the McNeil Companies focused
on their affirmative defense that the Goldies had been given
permission from Westport Apartments in 1997 to use the
Disputed Property. Patrick testified that he was the chief
executive officer of the McNeil Companies and an owner of
Westport Apartments. Prior to Westport Apartments’ purchase
of the McNeil Property in 1996, Patrick walked around the
property and did not see anything, such as permanent struc-
tures or footings, that would indicate that anyone was claim-
ing ownership of any portion of the property. After Westport
Apartments purchased the McNeil Property, Patrick sent let-
ters to adjoining property owners “just to let everybody

- 92 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
know that they had the right to use the property . . . until
[Westport Apartments] decided to start the multi-family proj-
ect.” Patrick testified that to his knowledge, a letter had been
sent to the Goldies.
A copy of the letter that Patrick alleged was sent to James
was admitted into evidence. The letter was dated May 23,
1997, and was prepared for Patrick’s signature. The letter
stated, in part, that “[o]ne or more of the owners of property
adjacent to [the McNeil Property] were granted permission
by the previous owners . . . to plant gardens, landscape or
otherwise use parts of” the McNeil Property. The letter further
stated that plans for development of the McNeil Property had
not been finalized but that it was “anticipate[d] that some
development of this property will occur in the future.” The
letter stated that Westport Apartments would not “discontinue
the past practice of allowing adjacent property owners to con-
tinue some limited use of” the McNeil Property, but with the
“understanding that at some point in the relatively near future,
[the McNeil Property] will be developed and, absent from
further agreement, all such uses will have to be discontinued.”
The letter requested recipients “to sign the Acknowledgment
and Consent which is affixed to this letter and to provide
proof of liability insurance if they desire to continue to use
any part of [the McNeil Property] for any purpose.” The
letter further stated if a recipient chose “not to execute the
Acknowledgment and Consent, Westport Apartments . . . will,
as of June 15, 1997[,] take actions to prevent any further use
or occupancy of” the McNeil Property.
A second letter that was addressed to James, dated August
25, 1997, and signed by Patrick, was also admitted into
evidence. The second letter referred to the May 1997 letter
and noted that James had been asked for “written Consent
and Acknowledgment to the matters specified in the letter.”
The letter stated that Westport Apartments had not received
a response to the May letter and that if James chose “not
to provide the requested Consent and Acknowledgment by

- 93 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
September 30, 1997, Westport Apartments . . . will proceed
with appropriate action to remove any encroachments, which
may include initiation of legal proceedings.”
Patrick testified that despite the language in the second let-
ter, there was no intent to file a lawsuit against any property
owner who did not return the consent form because Westport
Apartments had no notice that there was any “permanent
structure or anything” or that anyone “was using the prop-
erty different than what we had hoped they would use it for.”
Patrick testified that between 1996 and 2022, he had walked
around the McNeil Property approximately 50 times and had
never seen any permanent structures or footings placed on
any part of the property or any activities by adjacent property
owners that indicated a claim of ownership to any portion of
the property. Patrick testified that Westport Apartments deeded
the McNeil Property to McNeil & Company Builders in
2004 and that in approximately 2021, the McNeil Companies
decided it was time to start developing the property.
On cross-examination, Patrick testified that despite the state-
ment in the May 1997 letter that previous owners of the
McNeil Property had granted certain permissions to adjacent
property owners, he had no personal knowledge that permis-
sion had been given for adjacent property owners to use the
property to plant gardens, landscape, or perform other activi-
ties. He also testified on cross-examination that he had not
filed any lawsuit to remove anyone from the McNeil Property
or any portion of it.
Joyce Snowden testified that she was retired but that for
the previous 30 years, she was vice president of finance
for the McNeil Companies. Her duties included account-
ing, finance, and overseeing administration of the McNeil
Companies. She was responsible for mailings, including the
mailings that were sent in 1997 to property owners who
lived adjacent to the McNeil Property. Snowden testified that
in 1997, she had created a spreadsheet regarding the mail-
ings, and the court received a copy of the spreadsheet into

- 94 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
evidence. Snowden had filled out most of the spreadsheet
and had supervised assistants who completed other parts. The
spreadsheet listed adjacent property owners to whom letters
had been sent in May and August 1997 and had columns to
indicate whether each letter had been sent, whether a return
receipt card had been returned, and whether a consent form
had been returned. The spreadsheet included a line for “James
Goldie,” indicating the street address of the Goldie Property.
The line for James indicated a “Y” for the May 1997 letter’s
being sent and for a return receipt card’s being received,
as well as for the August 1997 letter’s being sent. The line
included a dash in the column for the consent form’s being
returned in response to the May letter, and it included an “N”
in the column for a return receipt card’s being received for
the August letter. Snowden testified the spreadsheet indicated
that the May letter had been sent to “the Goldie residence”
and that a return receipt card had been received.
On cross-examination, Snowden testified that while the
spreadsheet led her to “believe” she received a return receipt
card for the May 1997 letter, she did “not recall if it was
signed or unsigned.” She also testified that she did not have
the actual return receipt card from the May 1997 mailing,
that the August 1997 letter to James was returned to her and
marked as “unclaimed,” and that the return receipt card for the
August letter was unsigned.
District Court’s Order
After trial, the district court entered an order in which it
found in favor of the Goldies on their claim of adverse pos-
session and quieted title to the Disputed Property in the Trust.
Citing the relevant legal standard, the court found that the
Goldies had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
they had been in actual, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and
adverse possession of the Disputed Property under a claim of
ownership for at least 10 years.

- 95 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
Regarding actual, continuous, and exclusive possession, the
court found that when the Goldies purchased their property in
1988, they “began ‘expanding’ their back yard to encroach on”
the McNeil Property, “including erecting a split rail fence,”
“planting a tree,” and “removing downed trees.” The court
further found that the Goldies “mowed, fertilized and weeded,
and cared for the disputed property beginning in 1989” and
that they “planted a garden on the disputed property.” The
court found that “from 1988 until 1998, no one other than
the Goldies used or maintained the disputed property,” and
that “[t]heir use and maintenance was conspicuous.” Based
on these findings, the court found that “the Goldies actually
and continuously possessed the disputed property for a period
of at least 10 years” and that, regarding exclusive possession,
the Goldies “were the only ones to use the property during the
statutory period.”
Regarding notorious possession, the district court cited
precedent of this court to the effect that possession is noto-
rious if an occupier’s actions on land constitute visible and
conspicuous evidence of possession and use of the land. The
court found that the Goldies “did not try [to] hide . . . their
activit[y]” on the Disputed Property, and the court determined
that the Goldies’ possession of the Disputed Property “was
continuously notorious for a period of at least 10 years.”
Regarding adverse possession under a claim of ownership,
the district court cited precedent of this court to the effect
that such possession is “hostile” in the sense that the claimant
“holds and is in possession as owner and therefore against all
other claimants of the land” and that possession is manifested
in a manner “to give notice to the real owner that his title
or ownership is in danger so that he may, within the period
of limitations, take action to protect his interest.” The court
found that the Goldies “occupied the land as owners” in a
manner that “constitutes an adverse nature.”
The district court addressed the McNeil Companies’ affirma-
tive defense that the Goldies’ possession of the Disputed

- 96 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
Property was permissive based on the letters sent by Westport
Apartments in 1997. The court found that “although most of
the owners abutting [the McNeil Property] received the letter
via certified mail, having signed a return receipt, [the McNeil
Companies] could not produce one signed by [the Goldies].”
The court noted Snowden’s testimony that she had no physi-
cal return receipt card and that she had “only a chart which
she prepared listing whether the return receipt was received.”
The court stated that while the chart indicated that Snowden
received a return receipt card from the Goldies, she “testi-
fied that she believes she got [the Goldies’] return receipt”
but that she “does not recall whether it was signed or not.”
(Emphasis in original.) Noting a conflict in the evidence
regarding whether the Goldies received the letters in 1997, the
court credited testimony by James and Carol that the Goldies
“did not receive the initial letter.” The court also found
that the “second letter sent to [the Goldies] was returned as
‘Unclaimed’” and that the McNeil Companies “took no action
to remove any encroachments.”
The district court stated that it could not find any Nebraska
precedent regarding whether “acknowledgment of permissive
use is required to toll the statute of limitations on adverse pos-
session,” but that the McNeil Companies “obviously believed
that acknowledgment was necessary, or it would not have
been requested.” The court found that the Goldies “never
acknowledged [the McNeil Companies’] superior right to pos-
session of the property” and that instead, the Goldies “at all
times acted as owners, doing exactly what they wanted on the
disputed property from approximately 1998 to the present.”
The court concluded that the McNeil Companies’ “permissive
use defense fails.”
Having found that the Goldies proved adverse posses-
sion, the district court found that the Disputed Property
should be quieted in the Trust. The court set forth a legal
description for the Disputed Property and incorporated into
the order by reference an “as-built survey” that depicted the

- 97 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
Disputed Property and that had been offered by the Goldies
and received into evidence.
The McNeil Companies appeal the district court’s order qui-
eting title to the Disputed Property.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The McNeil Companies generally assign that the district
court erred in determining that the Goldies adversely pos-
sessed the Disputed Property. They specifically assert that
the district court erred in finding (1) the Goldies’ use of the
Disputed Property was notorious and (2) the Goldies’ use of
the Disputed Property was adverse under a claim of ownership.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] A quiet title action sounds in equity. 1 On appeal from
an equity action, an appellate court decides factual questions
de novo on the record and, as to questions of both fact and
law, is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the trial
court’s determination. 2
[3] In an appeal of an equity action, where credible evi-
dence is in conflict on a material question of fact, an appel-
late court considers and may give weight to the fact that the
trial court heard and observed the witnesses and their man-
ner of testifying and accepted one version of the facts rather
than another. 3
ANALYSIS
[4] The McNeil Companies generally challenge the district
court’s finding that the Goldies showed adverse possession of
the Disputed Property. A party claiming title through adverse
possession must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the adverse possessor has been in (1) actual, (2) continu-
ous, (3) exclusive, (4) notorious, and (5) adverse possession
1 Siedlik v. Nissen, 303 Neb. 784, 931 N.W.2d 439 (2019).
2 Id.
3 Id.

- 98 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
under a claim of ownership for a statutory period of 10 years. 4
The district court found that the Goldies showed all elements
by a preponderance of the evidence.
The McNeil Companies do not specifically challenge the
district court’s findings that the Goldies were in actual, con-
tinuous, and exclusive possession of the Disputed Property.
Instead, they challenge the district court’s findings that the
Goldies’ possession of the Disputed Property was notorious
and that it was adverse under a claim of ownership for the
full statutory period of 10 years. We address those two ele-
ments below.
Notorious Possession
[5,6] The McNeil Companies argue that the Goldies did not
show that their possession of the Disputed Property was noto-
rious. To be effective against the true owner, acts of dominion
over land allegedly adversely possessed must be so open,
notorious, and hostile as to put an ordinarily prudent person
on notice of the fact that the lands are in the adverse posses-
sion of another. 5 If an occupier’s physical actions on the land
constitute visible and conspicuous evidence of possession and
use of the land, such will generally be sufficient to establish
that possession was notorious. 6
[7] Although the enclosure of land renders the possession of
land open and notorious, and tends to show that it is exclusive,
it is not the only way by which possession may be rendered
open and notorious. 7 Nonenclosing improvements to land,
such as erecting buildings or planting groves or trees, which
show an intention to appropriate the land to some useful pur-
pose, are sufficient. 8
4 Brown v. Morello, 308 Neb. 968, 957 N.W.2d 884 (2021).
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Siedlik v. Nissen, supra note 1.
8 Id.

- 99 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
The McNeil Companies argue that the Goldies’ use of the
Disputed Property was not notorious because the Goldies
did not put up any permanent structures or structures that
required footings or that would clearly indicate the Disputed
Property was being used by them. The McNeil Companies
argue that the Goldies’ use amounted to mere maintenance of
the Disputed Property. They cite Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, 9
in which we said that acts of routine yard maintenance, with-
out more, are not sufficiently notorious to warn the titleholder
that another is claiming or using the land for his or her own
purpose and that something more than a neighbor watering and
mowing over the property line is needed to alert a reasonable
owner that the title is in danger and the owner must take steps
to protect his or her interest.
In Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, we found that the plaintiffs
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their
possession of the disputed property was sufficiently notori-
ous to support a claim of adverse possession. We stated that
before the plaintiffs purchased their land, the prior owner had
installed an underground sprinkler system that extended par-
tially onto the neighboring lot and had laid sod that extended
partially onto the neighboring lot. We reasoned that while
these extensions onto the disputed property were improve-
ments to the land, they were not conspicuous because “[a]
butting lawns are ubiquitous in residential neighborhoods,” 10
and we stated that the plaintiffs “made no other visible
improvements to the disputed land that might indicate a claim
of ownership, such as planting trees or installing a shed,
fence, or playset on the land.” 11
In contrast to the plaintiffs in Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes,
the Goldies’ testimony indicates that they did more than mere
maintenance of the Disputed Property. When the Goldies
9 Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes, 293 Neb. 115, 876 N.W.2d 356 (2016).
10 Id. at 120-21, 876 N.W.2d at 360.
11 Id. at 121, 876 N.W.2d at 360.

- 100 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
moved onto their property, the Disputed Property appeared to
be unkept and abandoned. The Goldies cleared the Disputed
Property by treating weeds, picking up tree limbs and other
debris, and removing certain trees, and they generally prepared
the area for their own use by planting grass seed, putting up
a fence, doing some landscaping, and building a treehouse.
The Goldies thereafter used the Disputed Property for family
activities, and in later years, they planted at least one new tree
and a garden on the Disputed Property.
While the Goldies performed maintenance activities such
as watering and mowing on the Disputed Property, unlike
the maintenance activities that we noted in Poullos v. Pine
Crest Homes, the Goldies’ maintenance constituted more than
merely watering over the line into a neighbor’s property and
mowing and maintaining the land in a manner that was indis-
tinguishable from the way abutting portions of the McNeil
Property were being maintained. Rather than the ubiquitous
abutting lawns we referred to in Poullos v. Pine Crest Homes,
because of the Goldies’ actions to clear, maintain, and use the
Disputed Property, the appearance of the Disputed Property
presented a visible contrast to the condition of the abut-
ting portions of the McNeil Property, which were not being
maintained in the same manner. Based on the testimony and
photographic evidence presented by the Goldies, this contrast
existed for at least 10 years after the Goldies began to possess
the Disputed Property in 1988 or 1989.
The contrast created by the Goldies’ actions of clearing,
maintaining, and using the Disputed Property supports a find-
ing that their possession was “notorious” under our prec-
edent set forth above. The Goldies’ actions in possession of
the Disputed Property showed their “intention to appropriate
the land to some useful purpose” 12 and constituted “visible
and conspicuous evidence of possession and use” 13 of the
12 Siedlik v. Nissen, supra note 1, 303 Neb. at 792, 931 N.W.2d at 447.
13 Brown v. Morello, supra note 4, 308 Neb. at 973, 957 N.W.2d at 889.

- 101 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
Disputed Property under the circumstance of this case. In
our de novo review, we agree with the district court’s finding
that the Goldies showed by a preponderance of the evidence
that their possession of the Disputed Property was notorious.
Adverse Possession Under
Claim of Ownership
The McNeil Companies also argue that the Goldies did
not show that their possession of the Disputed Property was
adverse under a claim of ownership for the statutory period
of 10 years. The McNeil Companies focus on their defense
that the Goldies’ use of the Disputed Property had been per-
missive since 1997 when Westport Apartments sent letters to
the Goldies granting permission to continue their use of the
Disputed Property. The McNeil Companies argue that even
if the Goldies began an adverse possession of the Disputed
Property as early as 1988, the adverse possession ended with
the permission granted in 1997 and did not last for the required
statutory period of 10 years.
[8,9] A possession that is adverse is under a claim of own-
ership. 14 Claim of ownership or claim of right means “hos-
tile,” and these terms describe the same element of adverse
possession. 15 The word “hostile,” when applied to the pos-
session of an occupant of real estate holding adversely, is not
to be construed as showing ill will, or that the occupant is
an enemy of the person holding the legal title, but means an
occupant who holds and is in possession as owner and there-
fore against all other claimants of the land. 16 The purpose of
prescribing the manner in which an adverse holding will be
manifested is to give notice to the real owner that his or her
title or ownership is in danger so that the real owner may,
14 Wanha v. Long, 255 Neb. 849, 587 N.W.2d 531 (1998).
15 Id.
16 Id.

- 102 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
within the period of limitations, take action to protect his or
her interest. 17 It is the nature of the hostile possession that
constitutes the warning, not the intent of the claimant when he
or she takes possession. 18
[10] When analyzing whether possession is adverse, we have
considered whether possession is by permission. We stated in
Wanha v. Long 19 that permissive use of property can never
ripen into title by adverse possession unless there is a change
in the nature of possession brought to the attention of the
owner in some plain and unequivocal manner that the person in
possession is claiming adversely thereby. However, in Wanha
v. Long, we determined that there was no evidence that any of
the owners during the relevant period had given the plaintiffs
permission to use the disputed property, and we concluded that
the plaintiffs’ possession of the disputed property was not per-
missive and was under a claim of right for the statutory period
of at least 10 years. 20
The Goldies dispute the McNeil Companies’ contention that
the Goldies’ use of the Disputed Property had been permissive
since 1997. The Goldies note the district court found that the
Goldies never received the letters that purportedly gave them
permission to use the Disputed Property and that therefore,
they were never given permission.
The Goldies alternatively argue that even if they received
permission in 1997, such permission was not given until after
their adverse possession of the Disputed Property had begun.
The Goldies contend that under Nebraska law, “permission,
to be effective, needs to occur prior to the commencement
of the possession, not during.” 21 The Goldies cite precedent
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Brief for appellees at 38.

- 103 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
of this court stating that “the evidence shows the original
use of these areas to have been permissive” 22 and that “[i]f a
use begins as a permissive use, it retains that character until
notice that the use is claimed as a matter of right is com-
municated to the owner of the servient estate.” 23 The Goldies
argue that because our case law refers to “the original use”
of property and “use [that] begins as a permissive use,” use
of property must begin as permissive for permission to defeat
a claim of adverse possession and that permission granted by
an owner after adverse possession has begun is not effective
to defeat such a claim.
We do not read the cases cited by the Goldies to necessar-
ily require that permission must be given before an adverse
possession begins to defeat a claim of adverse possession.
Instead, the cases involve fact patterns in which use began as
permissive, and the cases address how use that began as per-
missive might be found to have later turned adverse. Neither
party directs us to Nebraska precedent explicitly address-
ing whether use must be permissive from the beginning to
defeat a claim of adverse possession or whether permission
given after an adverse possession has begun may defeat such
a claim. At least some other states appear to have recog-
nized that permission given after a period of adverse posses-
sion has begun may, in appropriate circumstances, defeat a
claim of adverse possession. 24 But in this case, we need not
decide whether or how permission by an owner may end a
period of adverse possession in Nebraska, because we find
22 Scoville v. Fisher, 181 Neb. 496, 500, 149 N.W.2d 339, 342 (1967)
abrogated on other grounds, Feloney v. Baye, 283 Neb. 972, 815 N.W.2d
160 (2012).
23 Royal v. McKee, 298 Neb. 560, 569, 905 N.W.2d 51, 58 (2017).
24 See, Jones v. Miles, 189 N.C. App. 289, 658 S.E.2d 23 (2008); McKenzie
v. Pope, 33 P.3d 1277 (Colo. App. 2001). See, also, Zivic v. Place, 122
N.H. 808, 451 A.2d 960 (1982).

- 104 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
no error in the district court’s finding that the Goldies did not
receive permission.
The district court found that the Goldies did not receive
the 	letters 	in 	1997 	that 	purportedly 	granted 	permission.
The court recognized a conflict in the evidence regarding
whether the Goldies received the May 1997 letter, with both
James and Carol testifying that they never received the letter
and the McNeil Companies presenting testimony by Patrick
and Snowden that both the May and August 1997 letters had
been sent to James. The court found the Goldies’ testimony to
be more credible and noted that Snowden testified only that,
based on her spreadsheet, she believed that James had received
the May 1997 letter. The court also noted that Snowden’s
spreadsheet showed that the August 1997 letter to James had
been returned as unclaimed.
In our de novo review, we consider and give weight to
the fact that the district court accepted the Goldies’ version
of the facts rather than the McNeil Companies’ version.
We agree with the district court’s finding that the Goldies
did not receive the letters in 1997, and because the McNeil
Companies did not point to any evidence that permission was
given to the Goldies at any time other than in the 1997 let-
ters, we agree with the district court’s rejection of the McNeil
Companies’ argument that the Goldies’ possession of the
Disputed Property was or became permissive.
The Goldies also presented evidence that their possession
was adverse under a claim of ownership. Carol testified that
the Goldies did not have permission from anyone to clear or
to use the Disputed Property, that they decided they should
“take over” or own the area, and that they “wanted other
people to know that that was [their] property and to stay out.”
In our de novo review, we agree with the district court’s find-
ing that the Goldies’ possession of the Disputed Property was
adverse under a claim of ownership for the statutory period
of 10 years.

- 105 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
GOLDIE v. McNEIL & CO. BUILDERS
Cite as 321 Neb. 84
CONCLUSION
In our de novo review, we find no error in the district court’s
specific findings that the Goldies’ possession of the Disputed
Property was notorious and adverse under a claim of ownership
for the statutory period of 10 years or in the district court’s
general finding that the Goldies showed adverse possession
by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore affirm the
district court’s order quieting title to the Disputed Property in
the Trust.
Affirmed.