Martens v. BB's Childcare

- 335 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
William Martens, appellee, v. BB’s Childcare,
LLC, et al., appellants.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed May 8, 2026. 	No. S-24-914.
1. Jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. When a
jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, the issue is a
matter of law.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews questions of
law independently of the lower court’s conclusion.
3. Pleadings: Appeal and Error. The denial of a motion to alter or amend
the judgment is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
4. Appeal and Error. A district court by definition abuses its discretion
when it makes an error of law.
5. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before reaching the legal issues
presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine
whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.
6. ____: ____. If the court from which a party appeals lacked jurisdiction,
then the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction. But an appellate court
has the power to determine whether it has jurisdiction over an appeal
and to correct jurisdictional issues even if it does not have jurisdiction
to reach the merits.
7. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Collateral Attack. A judgment entered by a
court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void and may be attacked
at any time in any proceeding.
8. Courts: Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. While an
intermediate appellate court still has jurisdiction over an appeal, it has
the inherent power to vacate or modify a final judgment or order.
9. Records: Appeal and Error. A district court’s ruling upon a request to
supplement the transcript after submission of an appeal will be reviewed
for an abuse of discretion.
10. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists if
the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/18/2026 12:45 AM CDT

- 336 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in mat-
ters submitted for disposition.
11. Forcible Entry and Detainer: Restitution: Jurisdiction: Records:
Appeal and Error. If a supplemental transcript on appeal is necessary
to establish whether a county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
to enter a judgment for restitution of premises in a forcible entry and
detainer action, then a district court abuses its discretion by refusing to
grant leave to file it out of time.
12. Forcible Entry and Detainer: Title: Courts: Jurisdiction. A court
cannot determine a question of title in a forcible entry and detainer
action; if the resolution of the case would require the court to determine
a title dispute, it must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
13. Forcible Entry and Detainer: Title: Jurisdiction. Where the right to
possession in a forcible entry and detainer action involves a title dispute,
resort must be had not only to another tribunal, but also to a different
form of action.
14. ____: ____: ____. When a party attempts to interject a title dispute into
a forcible entry and detainer action, thereby transforming the proceed-
ings into an action to determine title, the court is divested of jurisdiction.
15. ____: ____: ____. In a forcible entry and detainer action, the defendant’s
mere assertion that a title claim exists is not enough to deprive a court
of jurisdiction. Instead, a court may proceed until the evidence discloses
that the question involved is one of title.
16. Forcible Entry and Detainer: Title: Jurisdiction: Dismissal and
Nonsuit. If the court in a forcible entry and detainer action can find and
determine the right of possession without at the same time determining
the rights of the parties, legal or equitable, in the property itself, it can-
not be said that the title is drawn into question. But if the claimant’s
right of possession depends on resolving some right of the defendant,
whether legal or equitable, in the property itself, the court must dismiss
the forcible entry and detainer action for want of jurisdiction.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Jeffrey
J. Lux, Judge. Judgment vacated, and cause remanded with
directions.
Cathy S. Trent-Vilim and John M. Walker, of Lamson Dugan
& Murray, L.L.C., for appellants.
Michael J. Decker for appellee.

- 337 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, Cody S. Barnett,
Lincoln J. Korell, and Katelyn J. Rich, Senior Certified Law
Student, for amicus curiae State of Nebraska.
Funke, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Papik, Freudenberg, and
Bergevin, JJ.
Cassel, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
From a district court’s judgment on appeal affirming a
county court’s judgment granting restitution of premises to
an owner in a forcible entry and detainer action, 1 the tenants
appeal. They assert that the district court abused its discretion
in not allowing a supplemental transcript to provide the county
court’s judgment and that because a title dispute existed, the
county court and district court lacked subject matter jurisdic-
tion. Because we agree, we vacate, and remand with directions.
II. BACKGROUND
1. Forcible Entry and Detainer
Action in County Court
In the interest of brevity, we omit procedural recitations
unnecessary to the ultimate resolution of this appeal.
In December 2023, William Martens (owner) sued BB’s
Childcare, LLC, and Tasha McNeil, in her capacity as reg-
istered agent and individually (collectively the tenants), in
county court. The litigation stemmed from the tenants’ pur-
portedly failing to pay rent on a commercial property pursu-
ant to a written lease that included options to purchase the
property and provisions for application of rental payments to
the purchase price. The owner sought restitution and posses-
sion of the premises, past due rent, the costs of repairs, and
costs and fees.
1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-21,219 to 25-21,235 (Reissue 2016 & Cum.
Supp. 2024).

- 338 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
From the county court’s initial transcript on appeal and
its bill of exceptions, we learn that the tenants asserted that
the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because,
they claimed, a dispute of title existed. It suffices to say that
they reasoned that several lease provisions established an equi-
table interest in the leased premises.
The county court held a trial. At this point, we summarize
the evidence. However, we omit discussion of evidence not
relevant to the jurisdictional issue.
In September 2020, the parties entered into three related
contracts, but we focus only on a lease agreement regarding the
commercial property. The lease agreement had a 5-year term,
ending on October 1, 2025. It contemplated that the parties
could enter into a second 5-year term, followed by a third term
that would expire in June 2035.
Particularly relevant here, paragraph 2 of the lease agree-
ment set forth an option for the tenants to purchase the prop-
erty from the owner during the second and third terms. It stated
that if the tenants exercised the option, they would be credited
for rent payments made prior to the closing of such purchase.
It further stated that “[s]hould the ownership of the premises
change during the first term of this lease, [the tenants] shall
have the option to purchase the premises under the same terms
and conditions provided above.” Finally, it stated that upon
default for nonpayment of rent, the tenants’ option to purchase
would terminate and become void.
Three other paragraphs of the lease are relevant. Paragraph 4
stated that the tenants agreed to pay “monthly rentals payable
in equal monthly installments of Three Thousand[] and 00/100
Dollars ($3,000.00) beginning January 1st, 2021.” (Emphasis
omitted.) It further provided that late charges would accrue if
the tenants were “ten (10) days late in payment of rent due.”
Paragraph 15 stated, “Default for non-payment of rent shall be
defined as [the tenants’] being ninety (90) days late with pay-
ment of rent.” Paragraph 19 referred to that provision as the
“90-day grace period.”

- 339 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
After the court received the parties’ evidence, the tenants
asserted that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdic-
tion. They cited C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Skupa. 2 The owner
eventually conceded that “jurisdiction is always at issue.” The
court set a briefing schedule and concluded the trial.
The tenants’ brief to the county court (included in the county
court’s transcript) argued that the county court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction, because
[the tenants’] option to purchase, credit for all lease pay-
ments made up till the date of actual purchase, and restric-
tions on [the owner’s] right to alienate the property with-
out giving [the tenants] an opportunity to exercise [their]
purchase option, all make [the tenants] much[] “more than
a mere lessee that can be dispossessed under a forcible
entry and detainer action.” Under the express terms of
the Lease Agreement, [the tenants] ha[ve] retained certain
equities and rights, including a restriction of [the owner’s]
right to freely alienate the premises. These are precisely
the equities retained in the type of instrument that the
Skupa[] court would deem a purchase contract, which
[c]ounty [c]ourt, as a justice court (not a court of general
jurisdiction), has no jurisdiction over.
The owner argued that Skupa did not apply, because that
case involved a contract for the sale of land and not a lease
agreement with an option to purchase at some future date. He
highlighted that the option “[was] not exercisable for another
year” and that the lease stated if the tenants failed to make
rent payments, the option could be forfeited. He argued that
because the property had not been sold to the tenants, they
had no ownership interest in the property. He maintained that
an action for unlawful detainer was “appropriate.”
From a supplemental transcript eventually filed in the dis-
trict court, we can discern that the county court rejected the
tenants’ jurisdictional argument and entered a judgment, styled
2 C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Skupa, 16 Neb. 341, 20 N.W. 393 (1884).

- 340 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
as an order, in favor of the owner and against the tenants for
restitution of premises. It agreed with the owner that Skupa
was not analogous and concluded that it had subject matter
jurisdiction. Without elaborating, it reasoned that the parties
were bound by a valid lease agreement and that the tenants
were in default for failing to pay rent according to the agreed
upon terms.
2. Appeal to District Court
On appeal to the district court, the tenants failed to request
that the county court’s judgment be included as part of the
transcript. The county court’s transcript did include the ten-
ants’ notice of appeal, which referred to the “judgment,
decree, or the final order entered on February 15, 2024.”
(Emphasis omitted.) Thus, the county court’s record, at the
time of submission to the district court, did not disclose any
findings, conclusions, reasoning, or relief granted or denied.
At that time, the tenants did not notify the district court of the
missing judgment.
Without noticing the omission, the district court held an
appeal hearing and received briefing from the parties (not in
the district court’s record on appeal to this court), neither of
which addressed the omission of the judgment or final order.
Later, in reviewing the county court’s record, the district
court noticed the omission and traced it to the tenants’ fail-
ure to include the judgment or final order in the praecipe for
transcript. The district court concluded that for that reason,
the absence of the “final order . . . d[id] not appear to be an
error in the preparation or certification” of the transcript by the
county court’s clerk.
The district court’s judgment on appeal recited a proposition
of law regarding the duty of the appealing party to present a
record; in its absence, the decision of the lower court will be
affirmed. For that reason, the district court declined to address
the merits of the appeal and “affirmed” the county court’s
“final order.”

- 341 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
3. The Tenants’ “Motion to Alter or Amend
and to Correct Record”
Within 10 days of the district court’s decision, the tenants—
through different counsel—filed a motion to alter or amend
and to correct the record. Attached to their motion was a
request for supplemental transcript that they had already filed
with the county court. Thereafter, the clerk of the district court
filed the supplemental transcript, which included the county
court’s judgment.
The district court held a hearing on the motion to alter or
amend and to correct the record, during which the tenants
offered the supplemental transcript as an exhibit. The owner
objected.
4. District Court Overrules
the Tenants’ Motion
Following the hearing, the court sustained the owner’s
objection to the tenants’ offer of the supplemental transcript,
overruled the tenants’ motion to alter or amend and to cor-
rect the record, and again affirmed the county court’s “final
order.” The court said that it “believe[d] it ha[d] the ability to
correct the record in appellate case situations” but that it was
“more open to doing such before the matter has been submit-
ted for a decision.”
Notably, in “affirm[ing]” the county court’s disposition, the
district court did not, at any point, conduct a jurisdictional
review. Instead, it again relied upon the proposition that it is
incumbent on the party appealing to present a record which
supports the errors assigned, and absent such a record, the
decision of the lower court will be affirmed. 3
The tenants filed a timely appeal to the Nebraska Court
of Appeals. The owner moved to dismiss the appeal, but
the Court of Appeals overruled his motion. We later moved
3 See Durkan v. Vaughan, 259 Neb. 288, 609 N.W.2d 358 (2000).

- 342 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
the appeal to our docket. 4 The Attorney General, on behalf of
the State of Nebraska, requested leave to file an amicus curiae
brief supporting the owner. We granted leave and have consid-
ered the State’s brief.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The tenants assign, restated, that the district court erred
in (1) failing to “void” the county court’s judgment, because
the dispute implicates title to real property and, therefore, the
county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to resolve it;
and (2) overruling their motion to correct the record with a
supplemental transcript.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. When
a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, the
issue is a matter of law. 5 An appellate court reviews questions
of law independently of the lower court’s conclusion. 6
[3,4] The denial of a motion to alter or amend the judgment
is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 7 A district
court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error
of law. 8
V. ANALYSIS
We begin by setting forth basic principles of jurisdiction and
appellate procedure. Then we recite court rules implementing
such procedures. A description follows regarding the failures
to adhere to those rules. We then have our first opportunity to
address a new rule requiring the absence of a mandatory item
4 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2024).
5 Doe v. State, 312 Neb. 665, 980 N.W.2d 842 (2022).
6 Sherrets Bruno & Vogt v. Montoya, 318 Neb. 532, 17 N.W.3d 487 (2025).
7 Stone Land & Livestock Co. v. HBE, 309 Neb. 970, 962 N.W.2d 903
(2021).
8 Id.

- 343 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
in an appellate transcript to be raised before submission of the
appeal. And after addressing the application of that rule here,
we conclude by determining whether the county and district
courts lacked jurisdiction because of the existence of a title
dispute that cannot be decided in an action for forcible entry
and detainer.
1. Basic Jurisdictional Law and
Appellate Procedure
[5,6] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review,
it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has
jurisdiction over the matter before it. 9 If the court from which
a party appeals lacked jurisdiction, then the appellate court
acquires no jurisdiction. But an appellate court has the power
to determine whether it has jurisdiction over an appeal and to
correct jurisdictional issues even if it does not have jurisdic-
tion to reach the merits. 10
Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s power to hear and
determine a case in the general class or category to which the
proceedings in question belong and to deal with the general
subject involved in the action before the court and the particular
question which it assumes to determine. 11 As courts of limited
jurisdiction, county courts have only that jurisdiction which
has been granted through specific legislative enactment. 12
[7] Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a
judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent, nor may
subject matter jurisdiction be created by waiver, estoppel,
consent, or conduct of the parties. 13 A judgment entered by a
9 Powers v. Board of Directors of Elmwood Tower, 320 Neb. 906, 31
N.W.3d 599 (2026).
10 In re Adoption of Chase T., 295 Neb. 390, 888 N.W.2d 507 (2016).
11 In re Estate of Hockemeier, 280 Neb. 420, 786 N.W.2d 680 (2010).
12 In re Guardianship of Tomas J., 318 Neb. 503, 18 N.W.3d 87 (2025).
13 Perkins Cty. Bd. of Equal. v. Mid America Agri Prods., 317 Neb. 1, 8
N.W.3d 716 (2024).

- 344 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void and may
be attacked at any time in any proceeding. 14
The method of obtaining district court review of decisions
rendered by the county court is by appeal pursuant to Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 25-2728 (Cum. Supp. 2024). 15 Such an appeal
must be from a judgment or final order. 16 To vest appellate
jurisdiction in the district court from county court, all that is
required is the timely filed notice of appeal and timely deposit
of the district court docket fee. 17
Taken together, these principles imposed multiple require-
ments to vest the district court with jurisdiction of this appeal.
The county court must have had subject matter jurisdiction of
the action. The county court must have entered a judgment.
The tenants must have timely filed a notice of appeal and
timely deposited the district court’s docket fee. Here, the out-
come depends upon the county court’s jurisdiction, which we
address in due course.
2. Rules Implementing Statutory Procedures
The statutes governing appeals from county court to district
court contemplate a transcript 18 and a bill of exceptions, 19 each
of which is to be prepared in accordance with rules prescribed
by this court. 20 In this appeal, our focus is on the rule governing
a transcript on appeal from county court to district court. 21
Several requirements must be considered together. The rule
requires an appellant to request a transcript and imposes upon
14 Becher v. Becher, 311 Neb. 1, 970 N.W.2d 472 (2022).
15 See Miller v. Brunswick, 253 Neb. 141, 571 N.W.2d 245 (1997).
16 See § 25-2728.
17 See Rorick Partnership v. Haug, 228 Neb. 364, 422 N.W.2d 365 (1988).
18 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2731 (Cum. Supp. 2024).
19 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2732 (Reissue 2016).
20 See §§ 25-2731(2) and 25-2732(4).
21 See Neb. Ct. R. § 6-1452(A)(1) (rev. 2023).

- 345 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
the appellant a duty to designate the pleadings to be included. 22
But the rule mandates that certain items be included. 23 As per-
tinent here, these mandatory items include the judgment sought
to be reversed, vacated, or modified 24; the court’s opinion, if
any 25; the notice of appeal 26; the request for transcript 27; and
the request for bill of exceptions. 28 We have long understood
that a district court clerk must include a mandatory item in a
transcript, even if the appellant fails to request it. 29
In 2022, we imposed upon parties an additional require-
ment, which is a focus of this appeal. “A party must raise the
absence in the transcript of a mandatory document required
by § 6-1452(A)(1)(b) prior to submission of the appeal for
decision by the district court, unless the district court orders
otherwise.” 30 We next recite the ways in which these rules
were not followed here and the attempt made to address
the failures.
3. Motion to Alter or Amend
In several ways, the transcript rule was not followed. First,
the tenants failed to list the county court’s judgment in their
request for transcript. Second, the county court clerk did not
include the judgment in the transcript as a mandatory item.
Third, the tenants failed to raise the transcript’s absence prior
to submission of the appeal for decision. The appeal was
22 See § 6-1452(A)(1)(a).
23 See § 6-1452(A)(1)(b).
24 See § 6-1452(A)(1)(b)(ii).
25 See id.
26 See § 6-1452(A)(1)(b)(iii).
27 See id.
28 See id.
29 See Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-104(A)(2) (rev. 2022).
30 § 6-1452(A)(1)(d).

- 346 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
submitted when the district court held its hearing and took the
matter under advisement. 31
After the district court entered its initial judgment on appeal,
the tenants filed their motion to alter or amend the judgment.
They sought leave to add the supplemental transcript contain-
ing the county court’s judgment.
[8] The district court retained jurisdiction to consider the
tenants’ motion. While an intermediate appellate court still has
jurisdiction over an appeal, it has the inherent power to vacate
or modify a final judgment or order. 32 The tenants assign
error to the district court’s refusal to permit a late supplemen-
tal transcript.
We have not previously addressed the standard of review to
be applied to a district court’s ruling under § 6-1452(A)(1)(d).
As noted above, a ruling upon a motion to alter or amend a
judgment is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[9,10] The same standard should apply to a ruling under
§ 6-1452(A)(1)(d). We hold that a district court’s ruling upon
a request to supplement the transcript after submission of an
appeal will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A judicial
abuse of discretion exists if the reasons or rulings of a trial
judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a
substantial right and denying just results in matters submitted
for disposition. 33
[11] Here, whether the district court’s ruling was an abuse
of discretion depends upon whether the county court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction of the underlying action. This in
turn depends upon whether there existed a dispute of title. If
a supplemental transcript on appeal is necessary to establish
whether a county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
31 See Neb. Ct. R. § 6-105(B) (rev. 2024).
32 State v. Hausmann, 277 Neb. 819, 765 N.W.2d 219 (2009), overruled on
other grounds, McEwen v. Nebraska State College Sys., 303 Neb. 552, 931
N.W.2d 120 (2019).
33 Scott v. Scott, 319 Neb. 877, 25 N.W.3d 439 (2025).

- 347 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
enter a judgment for restitution of premises in a forcible entry
and detainer action, then a district court abuses its discretion by
refusing to grant leave to file it out of time.
That leads to the final step: Determining whether the dispute
included a question of title sufficient to divest the county court
of jurisdiction of an action for forcible entry and detainer. Here,
the answer depends upon the content of the lease agreement.
4. County Court Lacked Subject
Matter Jurisdiction
(a) Law on Title Disputes in Forcible Entry
and Detainer Actions
In Woodsonia Hwy 281 v. American Multi-Cinema, 34 we
recently set forth an extensive discussion of the nature of an
action for forcible entry and detainer and a county court’s lack
of subject matter jurisdiction to determine an issue of title in
such an action. We need not duplicate it here. We draw on it
only for the principles controlling here.
[12,13] For well over a century, we have held that a court
cannot determine a question of title in a forcible entry and
detainer action; if the resolution of the case would require the
court to determine a title dispute, it must dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction. 35 Where the right to possession in a forc-
ible entry and detainer action involves a title dispute, resort
must be had not only to another tribunal, but also to a different
form of action. 36
[14,15] When a party attempts to interject a title dispute
into a forcible entry and detainer action, thereby transform-
ing the proceedings into an action to determine title, the court
is divested of jurisdiction. 37 In a forcible entry and detainer
34 Woodsonia Hwy 281 v. American Multi-Cinema, 318 Neb. 592, 17 N.W.3d
780 (2025).
35 Cummins Mgmt. v. Gilroy, 266 Neb. 635, 667 N.W.2d 538 (2003).
36 Woodsonia Hwy 281 v. American Multi-Cinema, supra note 34.
37 Id.

- 348 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
action, the defendant’s mere assertion that a title claim exists
is not enough to deprive a court of jurisdiction. Instead, a court
may proceed until the evidence discloses that the question
involved is one of title. 38
[16] If the court in a forcible entry and detainer action can
find and determine the right of possession without at the same
time determining the rights of the parties, legal or equitable, in
the property itself, it cannot be said that the title is drawn into
question. But if the claimant’s right of possession depends on
resolving some right of the defendant, whether legal or equi-
table, in the property itself, the court must dismiss the forcible
entry and detainer action for want of jurisdiction. 39
At argument, we understood the tenants to read Woodsonia
Hwy 281 so broadly that a title dispute would inhere in every
action for forcible entry and detainer under a written lease. We
disapprove that reading. Thus, we turn to the specific lease pro-
visions that supported the tenants’ injection of a title dispute.
(b) Evidence Disclosed Title Dispute
Little work remains. We have already recited the lease pro-
visions providing the tenants an option to purchase, giving
them credit for all lease payments made until the date of actual
purchase, and imposing restrictions on the owner’s right to
alienate the property without giving the tenants an opportunity
to exercise their purchase option.
We agree that these lease provisions arguably conferred
an equitable interest in the real estate. This was sufficient
to establish a dispute of title and to divest the county court
of jurisdiction of the action for forcible entry and detainer.
Because the county court was divested of subject matter juris-
diction, it lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment for restitu-
tion of premises. And because the county court lacked jurisdic-
tion of the action, the district court lacked jurisdiction of the
38 Id.
39 Id.

- 349 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
MARTENS v. BB’S CHILDCARE
Cite as 321 Neb. 335
appeal. It necessarily follows that the district court abused its
discretion in refusing leave to file the supplemental transcript
and denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment.
None of this should be read to express any opinion regard-
ing the merits of the questions of title raised by the tenants. A
forum having general subject matter jurisdiction—the district
court—exists to determine the issues. 40 Neither do we express
any opinion regarding the nature or content of any potential
action that could be pursued there.
VI. CONCLUSION
As set forth in the analysis, we conclude the following:
• If the court from which a party appeals lacked jurisdiction,
then the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction.
• A district court’s ruling upon a request to supplement the tran-
script after submission of an appeal will be reviewed for an
abuse of discretion.
• If a supplemental transcript on appeal is necessary to establish
whether a county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
enter a judgment for restitution of premises in a forcible entry
and detainer action, then a district court abuses its discretion
by refusing to grant leave to file it out of time.
• A court cannot determine a question of title in a forcible entry
and detainer action; if the resolution of the case would require
the court to determine a title dispute, it must dismiss the case
for lack of jurisdiction.
We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment on appeal
and remand the cause to that court with directions to vacate
the judgment of the county court and to remand the cause with
instructions to dismiss the complaint for forcible entry and
detainer for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Judgment vacated, and cause
remanded with directions.
Vaughn, J., not participating.
40 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-302 (Reissue 2016).