Melia v. Hansen

- 517 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
Tad J. Melia and Janel K. Melia, Cotrustees
of the Tad & Janel Melia Trust, appellees
and cross-appellants, v. Randy L. Hansen,
appellant and cross-appellee.
___ N.W.2d ___
Filed January 10, 2023. 	No. A-22-229.
1. Easements: Equity. An adjudication of rights with respect to an ease-
ment is an equitable action.
2. Equity: Appeal and Error. On appeal from an equity action, an
appellate court tries 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 conclusion reached by the trial court. But when credible
evidence is in conflict on material issues of fact, the court may consider
and give weight to the fact that the trial court observed the witnesses
and accepted one version of the facts over another.
3. Easements. There is a two-step analysis to determine whether a servi-
ent estate owner’s use of an easement is valid: whether the easement
expressly allows it, and if it is unclear, whether it is a reasonable
exercise.
4. ____. The owner of the servient estate, which is the land that has the
easement, and the owner of the dominant estate, which is the person
who has rights to use the easement to access the land, share correlative
rights to the easement property.
5. Easements: Equity. Equity will not restrict the servient estate’s use
of the land, if the dominant estate receives all the uses it is entitled to
under the easement agreement. But the servient estate cannot interfere
with the dominant estate’s ability to use, maintain, or repair the ease-
ment or increase the risks to exercise the easement rights.
6. Injunction. Ordering an injunction provides an extraordinary remedy
and should be granted only when there is actual and substantial injury.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 07:52 AM CDT

- 518 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
7. ____. The right that would be violated without an injunction must be
clear, the damage must be irreparable, and a remedy at law would be
inadequate to prevent a failure of justice.
8. Trespass: Injunction: Equity. Where an injury is at risk of repetition,
equity looks to the nature of the injury instead of the magnitude of dam-
age when affording relief.
9. Equity. Under the doctrine of unclean hands, a person cannot obtain
relief in a court of equity if he or she acted inequitably, unfairly, or dis-
honestly to the controversy at issue.
10. Pleadings: Appeal and Error. The doctrine of unclean hands is an
affirmative defense. An affirmative defense must be pleaded to be con-
sidered by the trial court and appellate court.
Appeal from the District Court for Howard County: Karin
L. Noakes, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Rodney M. Wetovick, of Wetovick Law Office, for appellant.
Barry D. Geweke, of Stowell, Geweke & Piskorski, P.C.,
L.L.O., for appellees.
Moore, Riedmann, and Bishop, Judges.
Riedmann, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Randy L. Hansen appeals an order from the Howard
County District Court which permanently enjoined him and
his successors from gating, fencing, or otherwise obstruct-
ing an easement on his property granted to an adjoining
property owner. The adjoining property owners cross-appeal
the order to request a correction of the party names in the
district court’s order. After a de novo review of the record,
we affirm the district court’s order as modified to correct the
party names.
BACKGROUND
The dispute in this case arises from a stipulated easement
entered into during the course of a 2001 lawsuit between

- 519 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
Hansen and Janet M. Melia and Dale Melia, who owned the
subject property at the time (Melia Land). Hansen sued Janet
and Dale, seeking a temporary injunction and to quiet title on
a strip of land originally platted as a part of the North Loup
River. See Hansen v. Melia, No. A-02-811, 2003 WL 21447557
(Neb. App. June 24, 2003). Janet and Dale counterclaimed,
asserting claims for quiet title and implied easement. The legal
description for the Melia Land is Lot 3, Section 18, Township
15 North, Range 9 West of the 6th P.M., Howard County,
Nebraska. In practical terms, the Melia Land is a trapezoid-
shaped piece of land between the North Loup and Middle Loup
Rivers where the two rivers converge to a point to become
the Loup River. The 2001 lawsuit involved a dispute as to
the northern boundary of the Melia Land because the North
Loup River avulsed, leaving open ground that was previously
underwater.
The legal description for Hansen’s land is Lots 3, 4, 5, and
6, Section 7, Township 15 North, Range 9 West of the 6th
P.M., Howard County, Nebraska. In practical terms, Hansen’s
land runs along the north side of the North Loup River to the
confluence point, almost parallel to the Melia Land on the
opposite side of the North Loup River. The disputed area was
north of the North Loup River and includes the only point of
access to the Melia Land.
As a result of the 2001 lawsuit, the court established the
boundary between the two properties consistent with that
offered by Janet and Dale and rejected Hansen’s claim of
ownership as to the disputed land. As pertinent to the present
lawsuit, during the trial of the 2001 lawsuit, the parties stipu-
lated to an implied easement over a road on Hansen’s property
in order to gain access to the Melia Land. The district court
approved the stipulation and ordered that Janet and Dale had
an easement to use the road on Hansen’s property to access
their property. This court affirmed the district court’s order.
See Hansen v. Melia, supra.

- 520 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
Subsequently, Janet and Dale conveyed the Melia Land to
their son, Tad J. Melia, in 2014. Tad conveyed the land to
the Tad & Janel Melia Trust (the Melias) that same year. The
present lawsuit involves the use of the easement established
as a result of the 2001 lawsuit; therefore, we provide the fol-
lowing detail.
The easement is an access road that extends from a county
road and is used to access the Melia Land, as well as land west
of the Melia Land owned by Ron McBride. The access road
runs north to south, then veers southeast. Hansen owns the land
to the east of the access road and rents the property to the west,
which is the “Inman property.” The access road leads through
Hansen’s property and into the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) land. The road cuts through 3 acres of the BLM land,
before it reaches the Melia Land. A person driving down the
access road will encounter three gates: the north Hansen gate,
the south Hansen gate, and the Melia gate, which is on the
BLM land, but is owned by the Melias.
To the east of the access road is the south bottom field,
which essentially runs the length of the access road from the
north Hansen gate to the south Hansen gate. Hansen farms corn
and soybeans on the south bottom, then he pastures his cattle
to clear the stalks in the beginning of winter. The length of
time the cattle spend clearing the stalks depends on the amount
of cattle Hansen has, but their stay usually ranges between
1 to 3 weeks. When his cattle finish with the south bottom
field, Hansen moves them to the Inman property. To make this
transfer, Hansen must lead the cattle through the gates, around
a corner, and through a gate on the Inman property. Once the
cattle are moved to the Inman property, Hansen takes down
both gates.
The Melias sued Hansen to obtain a permanent injunction
prohibiting Hansen from obstructing the access road and a
declaratory judgment determining that the gates and cattle
were an unreasonable and unlawful interference with their

- 521 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
easement rights. Tad offered an alternative that would fence the
eastern side of the access road, but Hansen argued that it would
be more burdensome than his method. During trial, the parties
disputed the facts.
Hansen’s Method.
Hansen’s method to pasturing his cattle in the south bot-
tom is to gate the north entrance of the easement road and
allow the cattle to lie on the road. After the BLM barred his
access to its land and constructed a fence along the southern
border of the south bottom, Hansen began using a south gate
on the access road. Hansen argues that his method allows the
cattle to bed down on the road. Bedding down on the road
can prevent the cattle from sleeping on uneven ground in the
field, which could cause the cattle to roll over and die. He also
testified that he believes his method results in less work for
himself. Hansen’s son, James Hansen, testified that the gates
allow them to train their cattle to never cross a fence line,
which ensures if a fence goes down, the cattle are less likely
to escape.
James and his wife, Darlene Hansen, currently work together
to manage the cattle. James has been helping his father since
he turned 18 years old, and Darlene started helping after
she married James in 2009. Prior to 2009, Hansen employed
Robert Stevens from 2000 to 2009. Everyone that worked with
Hansen testified that they remember him using the north gate
before the easement was ordered.
While the cattle are grazing the south bottom field, the
Hansens regularly monitor them. They usually check on the
cattle up to five times a day. Darlene testified that she checks
the fencing three times a day, because of the potential prob-
lems with deer near the south bottom field. James testified
they check between 10 to 15 miles of electric fence two
times a day at the minimum during deer season because of
the potential harm deer can cause by running through their
fences.

- 522 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
There has always been fencing around the north and east
borders for the south bottom field. There has been a fence on
the southern border since the BLM barred Hansen from graz-
ing its land. Those fences are in place to keep the cattle from
grazing on land not owned by Hansen and consist of either
electric wire, barbed wire, or both. All of the Inman property
is fenced, including the west side of the access road, which
has a barbed wire fence separating it from the access road. The
Inman property is significantly larger than the south bottom
field, so the cattle stay there for up to 3 months.
Impact on the Melias.
The Melia Land currently has a primitive cabin on it. Janet
testified that between 2003 and 2014, she did not visit the
property often. Janet usually only went to the property for
Memorial Day. Tad testified that he went to the cabin many
weekends during the winter to trap and hunt. But now, he plans
to build a house on the property, which is where he plans to
spend winters. Tad also spoke to the steps he has taken to begin
building a home on his property, including working with zon-
ing and surveying the land to establish a floor height in accord-
ance with the flood plain.
Tad testified that Hansen’s pasturing method interferes with
his access to his land. His access is not barred, but it is
hindered by Hansen’s gates and cattle. The cattle lie across
the road, and Tad has to honk to chase them off the road.
Additionally, going through the access road during Hansen’s
pasturing means Tad must open and close two gates to get to
his property.
If Tad builds a home on their property, then Hansen’s pas-
turing method could further impact his ability to enjoy his
easement rights. McBride, Melias’ neighbor to the west who
uses the same easement to access his property, testified that
when the gates are in place, all of the postal delivery services
will leave his deliveries at the gate. Since he has valuable
items shipped to him, he now must ship them to Grand Island,

- 523 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
Nebraska, instead. Tad and McBride are also responsible for
maintaining the access road. It is their responsibility to clear
the snow on it and fill ruts. The additional gates and potential
for cattle on the road can complicate these tasks.
Tad’s Solution and Its Impact on Hansen.
In January 2021, Tad built a fence along the west side of
the south bottom field with high tensile wire to block the
cattle from the road. Tad testified that he used high tensile
wire because it had less of a chance of breaking if a deer
runs through it. He explained that he put the fence up because
otherwise the cattle stand in the road and he has to honk and
chase them off to get to his property. By building the fence,
Tad said the gates become unnecessary, thus making it easier
for him to access his property. Hansen objected to the fence
the day it was built, and shortly thereafter, he had his lawyer
send a letter to Tad threatening to take the fence down himself
if Tad did not.
Hansen believed Tad’s solution would add obstacles to get-
ting his cattle across the road and through the Inman property
gate. Tad suggested Hansen could alleviate the problem by
putting a gate in the fence on the east side of the access road.
However, Hansen, James, and Darlene all disagreed. Hansen
testified that Tad’s fence and an additional gate created a dif-
ficult barrier to easily transfer the cattle to the Inman property.
Darlene stated that with the additional fence, she would not
know how to turn the cattle around without running them into
the marshy area near the BLM land. James also added that they
could not run the cattle over the fence, because they train their
cattle not to cross downed fence.
The Hansens also believed that fencing the eastern bound-
ary of the access road would make more work for them in
their already busy schedule during the few weeks of grazing
on the south bottom field. Hansen argued his system is easier,
and Tad agreed. Hansen also argued that fencing the west
side of the south bottom would cause him to lose crop space.

- 524 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
However, Tad refuted that the fence would not take up enough
space to impact Hansen’s crops.
Despite Hansen’s reluctance to fence the east side of the
access road, he had offered to fence it before. In 2019, Hansen
suggested to McBride that he would be open to fencing the
eastern boundary, but only if he was compensated $10,000
for a 5-year term. Hansen explained that these costs represent
the “substantial amount . . . additional time, materials, and
frustration of checking” the fence constantly while pasturing
the stalks, and the risk of the cattle getting out if a deer runs
through the fence. Brief for appellant at 14. Hansen estimated
at trial that the fence adds an extra 500 to 600 yards that they
would have to check, but Tad testified he believed the fence
line to be only 200 yards.
Within a couple of weeks of the eastern fence being built,
a deer ran through the fence. Darlene discovered the fence
was down in the morning, but it was not fixed until later that
afternoon. Hansen eventually took down the fence, wrapped
up the materials, and placed them near a tree on the property
for Tad to pick up. Hansen argues that when there is only a
fence in place that a deer can damage, he runs the risk of his
cattle getting out.
Hansen also argued that the Melias constructed a gate on
the land owned by the BLM and that this gate restricts his
access to land he owns to the east of the BLM land because the
Melias keep the gate locked and he does not have a key. The
Melia gate is only open and unlocked when Tad is on the land.
Neither party has ever discussed providing Hansen with a key
to the gate, and Hansen has never requested access. However,
the Melias have an easement from the BLM to cross its land
and permission from it to erect and maintain the gate, whereas
Hansen does not have an easement to access the BLM land.
Without an easement and a key to the Melia gate, Hansen
stated he feels blocked from his own land. The district court
commented on the record that it believed this to be a dispute
with the BLM, not the Melias.

- 525 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
District Court’s Ruling.
The district court ruled in favor of the Melias, holding that
placement of gates and a fence across the easement materially
interferes with the easement’s use. The district court ordered
a permanent injunction that prevents Hansen and his succes-
sors from fencing, gating, or otherwise obstructing the Melias’
easement. In reaching its decision, the court determined that
the stipulation granting the easement made “clear that the
easement property is a road and that the scope of the ease-
ment allowed the use of the road to access Melia’s property.”
However, it also recognized that the language of the easement
was silent regarding the installation of fences or gates across
the roadway. Therefore, the court engaged in a balancing test
between the rights of each party and concluded that Hansen
had reasonable alternatives to gating the roadway that are not
unduly burdensome. Hansen appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Hansen assigns, restated, that the district court erred in (1)
determining that his pasturing method for the south bottom
field was an unreasonable interference, (2) making incorrect
or speculative factual findings that impacted its decision, (3)
imposing the permanent injunction based on its incorrect fac-
tual findings and without considering less restrictive alterna-
tives or options, and (4) failing to acknowledge the Melias’
unclean hands.
On cross-appeal, the Melias assign that the district court
incorrectly defined the owners of the property on which the
easement passes.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] An adjudication of rights with respect to an easement
is an equitable action. Homestead Estates Homeowners Assn. v.
Jones, 278 Neb. 149, 768 N.W.2d 436 (2009). On appeal from
an equity action, an appellate court tries factual questions de
novo on the record and, as to questions of both fact and law, is

- 526 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the conclusion
reached by the trial court. Lambert v. Holmberg, 271 Neb. 443,
712 N.W.2d 268 (2006). But when credible evidence is in con-
flict on material issues of fact, the court may consider and give
weight to the fact that the trial court observed the witnesses
and accepted one version of the facts over another. Homestead
Estates Homeowners Assn., supra.
ANALYSIS
No party disputes the validity of the easement; rather,
Hansen argues that the district court incorrectly determined
that his method of pasturing, including erecting gates across
the easement, was an unreasonable and material interference
of the Melias’ easement rights. He also argues that the district
court’s factual findings were contrary to the evidence and that
the district court should have considered ordering alterna-
tives to his pasturing method, instead of issuing an injunction.
Finally, he argues that the Melias’ gate erected on the BLM
land restricts his access to his own property and that due to the
Melias’ “unclean hands,” they are not entitled to an injunction.
The Melias cross-appeal and contend that the district court
incorrectly identified the parties in its order. We take up each
argument as follows.
Hansen’s Method Is Unreasonable Interference.
[3] There is a two-step analysis to determine whether a
servient estate owner’s use of an easement is valid: whether
the easement expressly allows it, and if it is unclear, whether
it is a reasonable exercise. Restatement (Third) of Property:
Servitudes, § 4.9 (2000). In the present case, the purpose of
the easement was to provide access to the Melia Land. Hansen
does not dispute the district court’s determination that the
specific language granting the easement does not indicate if a
fence or gate is a valid use of the easement land. Since Hansen
does not dispute the first step, we begin our analysis with the
second step, which balances the rights of the parties in equity

- 527 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
to decide whether Hansen’s pasturing method was a material
interference and unreasonable use of the easement land.
[4,5] The owner of the servient estate, which is the land that
has the easement, and the owner of the dominant estate, which
is the person who has rights to use the easement to access the
land, share correlative rights to the easement property. See
Kovanda v. Vavra, 10 Neb. App. 486, 633 N.W.2d 576 (2001).
Both parties must have due regard for each other and exercise
just consideration for the other’s rights and demands. See id.
Equity will not restrict the servient estate’s use of the land, if
the dominant estate receives all the uses it is entitled to under
the easement agreement. See id. But the servient estate cannot
interfere with the dominant estate’s ability to use, maintain, or
repair the easement or increase the risks to exercise the ease-
ment rights. Restatement, supra.
In Kovanda v. Vavra, supra, this court held that an irriga-
tion system interfered with the dominant estate owner’s ease-
ment rights because the irrigation system made the easement
too muddy for a vehicle to cross. The irrigation system over-
watered areas of the easement because the servient landowner
did not own the necessary land for the irrigation system to
make a full circle, so the system would dispense twice as
much water on turns. Id. The easement’s purpose was for
ingress and egress to reach the dominant estate owner’s prop-
erty by means of any vehicle, but the mud directly conflicted
with that purpose. Id. We found the trial court also clearly
erred by suggesting that the dominant estate owner could
plant wheat to obviate the need for easement access while the
servient estate irrigated. Id. We concluded that while access
was not barred, farming or irrigating both interfered with the
dominant estate owner’s easement rights by frustrating the
easement’s purpose. Id.
Hansen’s pasturing method involves two elements: the north
and south gates, and the cattle bedding down on the road.
Hansen argues that his method does not interfere with the
Melias’ easement rights because they can still access their

- 528 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
property and the pasturing of the south bottom takes only 1 to
3 weeks.
Akin to Kovanda, Hansen’s pasturing method creates a
material interference with the Melias’ easement access. Hansen
is correct that his pasturing method does not prevent the
Melias from accessing their land; however, making passage
more difficult can still constitute a material interference and
unreasonable use. See Graves v. Gerber, 208 Neb. 209, 302
N.W.2d 717 (1981) (enjoining servient tenement from gating
shared driveway because it made parking in adjacent garage
more difficult). Tad must open and close two gates and pos-
sibly scare off cattle to travel a few hundred yards to his
property. While these obstructions last only from 1 to 3 weeks
a year, it remains a material interference because it frustrates
the purpose of the easement—which is to access the Melia
Land. This is true, especially because the pasturing period usu-
ally takes place during the winter, which is when Tad uses the
Melia Land the most. It can also interrupt mail and other deliv-
ery service, as well as restrict the Melias’ ability to maintain
and clear the access road. Overall, Hansen’s pasturing method
is a material interference and unreasonable use, and there are
reasonable alternatives available.
Hansen argues alternatively that we should turn to precedent
outside of Nebraska to inform our decision on the reasonable-
ness standard. Hansen cites two cases but asks that we use the
holdings to draw contrast from the present case based on how
those courts defined reasonableness.
Hansen first cites Tidwell v. Bezner, 245 P.3d 620 (Okla. Civ.
App. 2010), which affirmed a permanent injunction to remove
the gates and fencing from an easement. The Oklahoma court
prefaced its holding by acknowledging that most jurisdictions
allow servient estate owners to put up gates across ease-
ments, especially where the land is used for confining cattle
or for other agricultural purposes. Id. But the Tidwell court
held that an electric bump gate was an unreasonable interfer-
ence with the easement because it posed a hazard to users and

- 529 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
damaged vehicles and because there was a reasonable alterna-
tive. Hansen argues that Tidwell provides a point of distinction
because his method involves only “light seasonal use, and even
less potential interference.” Brief for appellant at 20. But this
misstates the standard under Tidwell, because each case turns
on the circumstances surrounding the easement at issue.
He also relies on Taylor v. Hiatt, 279 N.C. App. 506, 865
S.E.2d 331 (2021), which affirmed a trial court’s order to
remove gates on an easement. Under North Carolina precedent,
a servient estate owner can fence an easement as long as it is
necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of the land and does
not materially impair or unreasonably interfere with the ease-
ment’s use. Id. The gates at issue in Taylor were temperamen-
tal, would not function well in the cold, and were located well
off the road to further make access difficult. Additionally, the
servient estate’s horses would congregate by the gates, which
would complicate passage. Id. Hansen asks we adopt the gen-
eral principles in Taylor, which determined that gates alone are
not an interference; however, Hansen’s request ignores how the
circumstances surrounding the easement play into the analysis.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction
because of the circumstances surrounding the easement at
issue. See id.
Both Tidwell and Taylor support the district court’s rul-
ing, rather than providing Hansen cases for distinction. Both
cases evince instances where gating an easement frustrated its
purpose when considering the circumstances surrounding its
use for access. Neither case supports Hansen’s request that we
simply inquire whether he had “‘sound reasons for using the
gates.’” Brief for appellant at 21. Hansen’s pasturing method
makes access to the Melias’ property more difficult. The dis-
trict court found Tad’s testimony about reasonable alternatives
credible, which testimony we find persuasive given the con-
flicting testimony. We agree with the district court’s ruling and
hold that Hansen’s gates and cattle represent material interfer-
ences of the Melias’ easement rights.

- 530 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
District Court Did Not Err In Its
Findings of Fact.
Hansen argues that the district court’s factual findings were
contrary to the evidence before the court, thus revealing a bias
in favor of the Melias. Hansen argues that the district court’s
findings are not based upon fact, so they cannot support its
conclusion. In his brief, he points to seven examples in the
district court’s order that he contends are not supported by
the evidence.
After reviewing the facts, the evidence adduced at trial,
and the district court’s order, we find no reversible error
in the court’s order. For instance, Hansen contends that the
district court made a factual error when it referred to the
fence Tad erected as “‘deer-resistant’ and indicated Hansen
had alternatives, meaning [he] could install such a fence”
because Tad’s fence was nonfunctional. Brief for appellant
at 23. However, the court’s characterization of Tad’s fence
as being deer-resistant was contained in the court’s fact sec-
tion and was derived from Tad’s testimony that he used “high
tensile barbed wire” because of the presence of deer. The
court did not indicate that Hansen could install a fence such
as that installed by Tad; rather, it noted there were reasonable
options available to prevent deer from running through the
fence, “such as flagging the fence or building a more deer-
resistant fence.”
Hansen claims that the district court’s conclusions drawn
from the evidence were incorrect factual findings. He cites to
the district court’s statement that his concerns regarding deer
running through easement fencing on the east side of the road
were speculative. In discussing Hansen’s concern, however, the
court stated, “There is always a risk of deer damaging fence
but Hansen’s testimony that they are more likely to run through
a fence located on the side of the easement is speculative.”
We agree.
It was established at trial that Hansen is responsible for 10
to 15 miles of fence line and that deer are a known danger to

- 531 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
the entire area of the south bottom. Even without the eastern
fence, Darlene and James both testified to checking the south
bottom multiple times a day because of the presence of deer.
The district court found Hansen’s heightened concern for an
east fence to be speculative, given the risk the deer pose to all
the other fences the Hansens check regularly.
Hansen also argues that the district court erred by determin-
ing there were reasonable alternatives to his pasturing method.
In addition to the district court’s suggestion that reasonable
alternatives could include flagging the fence or making it
more deer-resistant, it also suggested using a temporary fence
so Hansen would not lose crop space. Whether reasonable
alternatives exist is determined by the trier of fact. See Fiscel
v. Beach, 254 Neb. 678, 578 N.W.2d 52 (1998). The district
court concluded that the alternatives may be inconvenient,
but the slight inconvenience does not justify significant inter-
ference with the Melias’ easement rights. While we review
factual issues de novo, we can give weight to the district
court’s determination of credibility where there is a conflict
on a material issue. See Homestead Estates Homeowners
Assn. v. Jones, 278 Neb. 149, 768 N.W.2d 436 (2009). The
reasonable alternatives the district court suggested are not
burdensome under the facts and are suggestions for Hansen to
consider. They are not an exhaustive list of Hansen’s options
under its order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s fac-
tual findings.
Issuing Injunction Was Appropriate.
Hansen also argues that an injunction should not have been
imposed because there is no clear and irreparable damage that
the injunction is preventing. He asserts that there are a num-
ber of alternatives to resolving the issue such as a bump gate
or a remote-controlled gate but contends those are not options
if the injunction is affirmed.
[6-8] Ordering an injunction provides an extraordinary rem-
edy and should be granted only when there is actual and

- 532 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
substantial injury. See Harders v. Odvody, 261 Neb. 887, 626
N.W.2d 568 (2001). The right that would be violated without
the injunction must be clear, the damage must be irreparable,
and a remedy at law would be inadequate to prevent a failure
of justice. See Central States Found. v. Balka, 256 Neb. 369,
590 N.W.2d 832 (1999). Where an injury is at risk of rep-
etition, equity looks to the nature of the injury instead of the
magnitude of damage when affording relief. See Lambert v.
Holmberg, 271 Neb. 443, 712 N.W.2d 268 (2006).
Here, the injury is the continued obstruction of the easement
to the Melia Land by Hansen’s gates and cattle. While the mag-
nitude of damage is low, the repetition of this injury informs
why it is necessary. Without the injunction, the Melias will
continue to experience a material interference to the enjoyment
of their easement rights. As explained above, Hansen interferes
with the Melias’ rights by requiring them to open and close
two separate gates along the path to their property, as well as
the potential hazard of cattle lying in the road. Obstructing
one’s easement rights is a concrete injury. See Graves v.
Gerber, 208 Neb. 209, 302 N.W.2d 717 (1981).
Hansen’s alternatives do not merit consideration because
they were not raised at the trial level. An appellate court will
not consider an argument that is raised for the first time on
appeal. Eletech, Inc. v. Conveyance Consulting Group, 308
Neb. 733, 956 N.W.2d 692 (2021). Because Hansen did not
raise this issue at trial, we decline to address it.
Unclean Hands Doctrine Does Not Apply.
Hansen contends that the Melias have unclean hands because
their gate blocks Hansen from a piece of Hansen’s property. He
explains that “Melia has been excluding Hansen from some of
Hansen’s property for decades . . . by locking the green gate.”
Brief for appellant at 25. Hansen believes that since Melia
obstructs his path to a piece of his land, “Melia’s position
is the height of hypocrisy” and “is the definition of unclean
hands.” Id.

- 533 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
[9] Under the doctrine of unclean hands, a person cannot
obtain relief in a court of equity if he or she acted inequita-
bly, unfairly, or dishonestly to the controversy at issue. See
Farmington Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Wolf, 284 Neb. 280,
817 N.W.2d 758 (2012). Conduct that equates to unclean hands
is generally fraudulent, illegal, or unconscionable. See id.
[10] Hansen’s argument was not pled prior to trial. The
doctrine of unclean hands is an affirmative defense. See id.
An affirmative defense must be pleaded to be considered by
the trial court and appellate court. Funk v. Lincoln-Lancaster
Cty. Crime Stoppers, 294 Neb. 715, 885 N.W.2d 1 (2016).
At the trial level, the only affirmative defense Hansen raised
was laches, which he did not raise again on appeal. Therefore,
because it was not raised at trial, we do not need to address it.
See Eletech, Inc. v. Conveyance Consulting Group, supra.
But even if Hansen had properly pled his unclean hands
defense, it still would not apply. Hansen admitted during trial
that he had no easement to the BLM land. The BLM had
barred him from grazing the land, which was the catalyst to
Hansen’s installing the south gate. Tad, on the other hand,
has an easement over the BLM land, which allows him to
keep his gate there. Both parties admit that they have never
discussed the Melia gate or discussed exchanging keys to the
gate. Tad has not done anything illegal, unconscionable, or
dishonest by keeping the gate locked when he is not on the
property. There is no evidence Tad used the gate to obstruct
Hansen’s access. Therefore, the doctrine of unclean hands
does not apply.
Modification of District Court’s Order.
The Melias raise one issue on their cross-appeal: The dis-
trict court erred in identifying ownership of the land on which
the easement is located. We agree.
The district court identified the Melias’ easement as follows:
the road on Plaintiff’s land described as Lots 3, 4, 5, and
6 in Section Seven (7), Township Fifteen (15) North,

- 534 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
31 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MELIA v. HANSEN
Cite as 31 Neb. App. 517
Range Nine (9) West of the 6th P.M., in Howard County,
Nebraska to gain access to Defendant’s land described as
Lot 3, Section 18, Township 15 North, Range 9 West of
the 6th P.M., Howard County, Nebraska.
(Emphasis supplied.) The Melias were the plaintiffs in this
case, and Hansen owns Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6. The order appears
to contain a scrivener’s error and should instead read:
the road on Hansen’s land described as Lots 3, 4, 5, and
6 in Section Seven (7), Township Fifteen (15) North,
Range Nine (9) West of the 6th P.M. in Howard County,
Nebraska, to gain access to the Melias’ land described as
Lot 3, Section 18, Township 15 North, Range 9 West of
the 6th P.M., Howard County, Nebraska.
We modify the order accordingly.
CONCLUSION
Following a de novo review, we affirm the district court’s
determination that Hansen’s cattle and gates represent a mate-
rial interference to the Melias’ easement rights and that an
injunction was necessary. We modify the district court’s order
to correct proper ownership of the easement as set forth above.
Affirmed as modified.