Castillo v. Libert Land Holdings 4

- 287 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
Eduardo Castillo, appellee, v. Libert Land
Holdings 4 LLC, appellant, and Guardian
Tax Partners, Inc., appellee.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed April 5, 2024. 	No. S-23-360.
1. Declaratory Judgments. An action for declaratory judgment is sui
generis; whether such action is to be treated as one at law or one in
equity is to be determined by the nature of the dispute.
2. Equity: Quiet Title. A quiet title action sounds in equity.
3. Equity: Appeal and Error. In an appeal of an equity action, an appel-
late court tries factual questions de novo on the record and reaches
a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court; provided,
where the credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the
appellate court considers and may give weight to the fact that the trial
judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the
facts rather than another.
4. 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.
5. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale. Actions challenging title obtained via a tax deed
are governed by statute.
6. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale: Jurisdiction: Notice. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1843
(Reissue 2018) has a jurisdictional component that renders a tax deed
void when the tax deed holder failed to comply with the statutory notice
requirements prior to acquiring the deed.
7. Title: Deeds. Even if title under a tax deed is void or voidable, the
conditions precedent set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1843 and
77-1844 (Reissue 2018) must be met in order to first question and then
defeat title.
8. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale: Words and Phrases. The word “paid” in Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 77-1844 (Reissue 2018) includes tendering payment.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 08:37 AM CDT

- 288 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
9. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale: Notice: Service of Process: Proof. A strict
compliance by the tax sale purchaser with the statutes, not only as to
the service of the notice, but also as to the proof of such service, must
be reflected by the record before the county treasurer is clothed with
authority to issue a tax deed.
10. Tax Sale: Notice: Service of Process: Words and Phrases. In Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 77-1832(1)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2022), personal service means
service made by leaving the notice with the individual to be served and
residence service means service made by leaving the notice at the usual
place of residence of the individual to be served, with some person of
suitable age and discretion residing therein.
11. Tax Sale: Legislature: Intent: Notice: Service of Process. Under Neb.
Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1831, 77-1832, and 77-1834 (Cum. Supp. 2022), the
Legislature intended that notice of intent to apply for a treasurer’s tax
deed be given by personal or residence service both upon a person in
actual possession or occupancy of the real property and upon the person
in whose name the title to the real property appears of record who can
be found in this state.
12. Tax Sale: Notice: Service of Process: Words and Phrases. The word
“found” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1834 (Cum. Supp. 2022) means able to
be served.
13. Statutes: Legislature: Presumptions. It is to be presumed that the
Legislature, in using language in a statute, gave to it the significance
that had been previously accorded to it by the pronouncements of this
court unless a different meaning has been provided by the context of
the statute.
14. Tax Sale: Notice: Service of Process: Proof: Affidavits. Under Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 77-1833 (Cum. Supp. 2022), to provide proof of notice by
another method, proof of attempted personal or residence service must
be established by affidavit.
15. Title: Deeds: Tax Sale: Proof: Presumptions: Evidence. A county
treasurer’s tax deed is presumptive evidence that the procedures required
by law to make a good and valid tax sale and vest title in the purchaser
were done. The presumption is not conclusive and may be rebutted,
but the burden is upon the party attacking the validity of such a deed
to show by competent evidence some jurisdictional defect voiding
the deed.
16. Affidavits. It is the general rule that an affidavit should be made by one
having actual knowledge of the facts, and its allegations should be of the
pertinent facts and circumstances, rather than conclusions, and should be
full, certain, and exact.

- 289 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
17. ____. Statements in affidavits as to opinion, belief, or conclusions of
law are of no effect.
18. Deeds: Tax Sale: Proof: Notice: Service of Process: Affidavits. Proof
of service of notice under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1833 (Cum. Supp. 2022)
must be made by affidavit and filed with the application for a treasurer’s
tax deed; it cannot be cured or supplemented by evidence presented
at trial.
19. Appeal and Error. Although an appellate court ordinarily considers
only those errors assigned and discussed in the briefs, the appellate court
may, at its option, notice plain error.
20. ____. Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a
nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integ-
rity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.
21. Equity. The relief ordinarily granted in equity is such as the nature of
the case, the law, and the facts demand.
22. Equity: Quiet Title. In quiet title actions, one who seeks equity must
do equity.
23. Judgments. A judgment for money must specify with definiteness and
certainty the amount for which it is rendered.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Marlon
A. Polk, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Marc Odgaard for appellant Libert Land Holdings 4 LLC
and appellee Guardian Tax Partners, Inc.
Alton E. Mitchell Attorney at Law, L.L.C., for appellee
Eduardo Castillo.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Papik,
and Freudenberg, JJ.
Cassel, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Libert Land Holdings 4 LLC (LLH4) appeals from the dis-
trict court’s judgment declaring that its treasurer’s tax deed
was void for failure to comply with notice and proof require-
ments under the statutes governing collection of delinquent

- 290 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
real estate taxes by sale of real property. 1 We conclude that
LLH4’s application for the tax deed was deficient and that the
deficiencies could not be cured by evidence adduced at trial.
Thus, we agree that the tax deed was void. Because we note
plain error in another respect, we remand the cause to the dis-
trict court with directions, and otherwise affirm the judgment.
II. BACKGROUND
1. Property
According to county assessor records received in evidence,
the property at dispute in this appeal is legally described as
“Lot 21, Block 10, Clifton Hill, an Addition to the City of
Omaha in Douglas County, Nebraska.” A street address appears
in the evidentiary record. Eduardo Castillo is the record owner
of the property.
2. Treasurer’s Tax Sale and Deed
In March 2019, LLH4 purchased a tax certificate for $740.81
after Castillo failed to pay delinquent taxes levied upon the
property. The tax certificate provided for issuance of a tax deed
3 years thereafter “unless redemption is made” and “on sur-
render of this Certificate and Compliance with the provisions
of the Revenue Law.” There is no dispute that Castillo did not
redeem the property as allowed by law.
In October 2022, LLH4 filed an application for a treas-
urer’s tax deed after publishing notice in a Douglas County,
Nebraska, newspaper for 3 consecutive weeks. We will discuss
the application in more detail later in the opinion. The Douglas
County treasurer issued a treasurer’s tax deed in LLH4’s name.
3. Subsequent Attempt to
Redeem Property
Shortly after the treasurer’s tax deed was issued, Castillo
became aware of it and attempted to redeem the property. The
1 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1801 to 77-1863 (Reissue 2018 & Cum. Supp.
2022).

- 291 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
record contains a receipt from the Douglas County treasurer,
issued in October 2022, showing that Castillo tendered pay-
ment of $3,814.26. Apparently, the treasurer initially accepted
the payment but then refunded it, because the tax deed had
already been issued.
4. Lawsuit
A few days later, Castillo filed this declaratory judgment
action. The suit named both LLH4 and an apparently related
party, Guardian Tax Partners, Inc. (Guardian). Guardian is
not participating in this appeal. The complaint alleged that
the treasurer’s tax deed was void due to a failure to comply
with statutory notice requirements and sought to quiet title to
the property in Castillo’s name. LLH4 and Guardian filed an
amended answer, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim,
which are not at issue on appeal.
The district court held a bench trial, during which it received
evidence 	and 	heard 	the 	parties’ arguments. The 	evidence
included LLH4’s application for the treasurer’s tax deed, other
exhibits, and witnesses’ testimony. The testimonial evidence
will largely be irrelevant to our disposition.
Following trial, the district court entered a judgment, styled
as an order, finding that Castillo had met his burden of proof on
his complaint. Without explicitly addressing the claim for quiet
title, the court broadly entered judgment in Castillo’s favor.
It declared the tax deed void due to “[LLH4 and Guardian’s]
failure to comply with the notice requirements under section
77-1801 et seq. of the Nebraska Revised Statutes” and ordered
Castillo to pay taxes on the property and interest. The court
also entered judgment for Castillo on the counterclaim.
Regarding Castillo’s payment, the judgment required Castillo
to pay to LLH4 and Guardian, within 21 days of the date of
the judgment, “the amount of any and all the taxes paid for the
Treasurer’s Tax Deed by [them], with interest thereon at the
rate of 14% per annum, together with all other taxes subse-
quently paid at the same rate.” The judgment did not specify a
precise amount.

- 292 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
At oral argument, counsel for LLH4 stated that both par-
ties understood the court’s broad judgment to quiet title to the
property in Castillo’s name. We do likewise. 2
LLH4 filed a timely appeal, which we moved to our docket. 3
III. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
LLH4 assigns only that the district court erred in conclud-
ing that the notice requirements of § 77-1801 et seq. were not
satisfied and that the tax deed was void.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] An action for declaratory judgment is sui generis; whether
such action is to be treated as one at law or one in equity is to
be determined by the nature of the dispute. 4
[2,3] A quiet title action sounds in equity. 5 In an appeal of
an equity action, an appellate court tries factual questions de
novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of
the findings of the trial court; provided, where the credible
evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate
court considers and may give weight to the fact that the trial
judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one ver-
sion of the facts rather than another. 6
V. ANALYSIS
1. Jurisdiction
[4] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review,
it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it
2 See Adair Holdings v. Johnson, 304 Neb. 720, 726, 936 N.W.2d 517, 523
(2020) (“[b]ecause a void tax deed grants color of title in a potential future
action, it will always be incumbent upon the original landowner to bring
an action to quiet title in his or her name”).
3 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
4 In re Estate of Wiggins, 314 Neb. 565, 992 N.W.2d 429 (2023).
5 Arnold v. Walz, 306 Neb. 179, 944 N.W.2d 747 (2020).
6 Noah’s Ark Processors v. UniFirst Corp., 310 Neb. 896, 970 N.W.2d 72
(2022).

- 293 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
has jurisdiction over the matter before it. 7 Although neither
party challenges this court’s jurisdiction, we must briefly con-
sider it.
[5-7] Actions challenging title obtained via a tax deed
are governed by statute. 8 We have said that § 77-1843 has a
jurisdictional component that renders a tax deed void when
the tax deed holder failed to comply with the statutory notice
requirements prior to acquiring the deed. 9 But, even if title
under a tax deed is void or voidable, the conditions precedent
set forth in §§ 77-1843 and 77-1844 must be met in order to
first question and then defeat title. 10
Section 77-1844 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o per-
son shall be permitted to question the title acquired by a treas-
urer’s deed without first showing . . . that all taxes due upon
the property had been paid by such person.”
[8] Our prior decision that the word “paid” in § 77-1844
includes tendering payment 11 applies here. It is undisputed
that Castillo tendered payment to the county treasurer, but
because the tax deed had already been issued, the treasurer
refunded the payment. Castillo’s attempt to tender payment
complied with § 77-1844 and gave him standing to assert his
claims. Therefore, we have jurisdiction of the appeal.
2. Statutory Requirements
[9] The dispositive issue on appeal is whether LLH4 com-
plied with statutory requirements for notice and proof of
notice required for the issuance of a treasurer’s tax deed.
We have long held that a strict compliance by the tax sale
purchaser with the statutes, not only as to the service of
the notice, but also as to the proof of such service, must be
7 Mathiesen v. Kellogg, 315 Neb. 840, 1 N.W.3d 888 (2024).
8 Adair Holdings v. Johnson, supra note 2. See §§ 77-1801 to 77-1863.
9 Adair Holdings v. Johnson, supra note 2.
10 See Ottaco Acceptance, Inc. v. Larkin, 273 Neb. 765, 733 N.W.2d 539
(2007).
11 Adair Holdings v. Johnson, supra note 2.

- 294 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
reflected by the record before the county treasurer is clothed
with authority to issue a tax deed. 12
Our cases explain the rationale underlying the requirement
of strict compliance. “A tax deed is executed under a naked
power which must be strictly complied with.” 13 “It is an exer-
cise of the sovereign power of the government by which it
appropriates the property of the citizens to the support of the
commonwealth.” 14 Sale and issuance of a tax deed creates a
new title. 15 “When it is sought to divest the owner of his land
by a tax deed, it has always been held by this court that the
provisions of the statute must be strictly complied with, for
such provisions are mandatory.” 16
Our prior cases illustrate the strength of that requirement.
In one case, the treasurer’s tax deed failed because there was
no showing that personal service of notice could not be served
upon the person in whose name the land was taxed or some
person in possession of the land. 17 The record disclosed that
there was no notice other than by publication, and it was “not
shown that personal service could not have been made.” 18
In another case, the tax deed was void for want of proper
affidavit of proof of service. 19 There, the statute directed that
proof of published notice shall be evidenced by the affidavit
of the publisher, manager, or foreman of the newspaper, but
the affidavit filed with the treasurer designated the affiant
12 See, e.g., id.; Ottaco, Inc. v. McHugh, 263 Neb. 489, 640 N.W.2d 662
(2002); Brokaw v. Cottrell, 114 Neb. 858, 211 N.W. 184 (1926); Peck v.
Garfield County, 88 Neb. 635, 130 N.W. 258 (1911); Bendexen v. Fenton,
21 Neb. 184, 31 N.W. 685 (1887).
13 Sullivan v. Merriam, 16 Neb. 157, 160, 20 N.W. 118, 119 (1884).
14 Bendexen v. Fenton, supra note 12, 21 Neb. at 185, 31 N.W. at 686.
15 See Leigh v. Green, 64 Neb. 533, 90 N.W. 255 (1902).
16 Howell v. Jordan, 94 Neb. 264, 266, 143 N.W. 217, 218 (1913).
17 See id.
18 Id.
19 See Brokaw v. Cottrell, supra note 12.

- 295 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
as “editor” of the newspaper. Similarly, in another case, an
invalid tax deed resulted from proof of service made not by
affidavit, as required by statute, but in the form of an ordinary
sheriff’s return. 20
LLH4 conceded, at oral argument, that strict compliance
applies. LLH4 maintains that it met all requirements. Castillo
contends that LLH4 failed to strictly comply with specific
requirements governing service of notice.
Critically, there are statutory requirements both for service
of notice and for proof of notice. We first summarize the rel-
evant conditions for service of notice upon record owners and
occupants. We then recall the pertinent requirements for proof
of service.
(a) Service of Notice
As relevant here, three statutes focus on service of notice.
These statutes were most recently amended in 2019. 21 We cau-
tion a reader that the applicable statutory requirements at any
point in time are driven by the date of issuance of a particular
tax deed. 22
First, § 77-1831 sets forth the general requirement that a tax
sale purchaser effectuate service of a sufficient notice at least 3
months prior to applying for a treasurer’s tax deed. It demands
the purchaser to “serve[] or cause[] to be served a notice that
states . . . the tax deed will be applied for.” 23
Section 77-1832 designates the permitted methods of ser-
vice and identifies those entitled to service of notice. It begins
with a new requirement. The section now provides, in perti-
nent part:
20 See Peck v. Garfield County, supra note 12.
21 See 2019 Neb. Laws, L.B. 463.
22 See, e.g., § 77-1837.01(3) (tax sale certificates sold and issued between
January 1, 2017, and September 7, 2019, shall be governed by laws and
statutes in effect on September 7, 2019, regarding all matters relating to
tax deed proceedings).
23 § 77-1831 (emphasis supplied).

- 296 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
(1) Service of the notice provided by section 77-1831
shall be made by:
(a) Personal or residence service as described in sec-
tion 25-505.01 upon a person in actual possession or
occupancy of the real property and upon the person in
whose name the title to the real property appears of
record who can be found in this state. If a person in
actual possession or occupancy of the real property can-
not be served by personal or residence service, service
of the notice shall be made upon such person by certified
mail service or designated delivery service as described
in section 25-505.01, and the notice shall be sent to the
address of the property. If the person in whose name
the title to the real property appears of record cannot be
found in this state or if such person cannot be served
by personal or residence service, service of the notice
shall be made upon such person by certified mail ser-
vice or designated delivery service as described in sec-
tion 25-505.01, and the notice shall be sent to the name
and address to which the property tax statement was
mailed[.] 24
As observed in a prior decision, 25 § 77-1832 has been the
subject of significant revision since the turn of the century.
The current version now explicitly begins with a new require-
ment of “[p]ersonal or residence service as described in sec-
tion 25-505.01.” 26
[10] For definitions of personal or residence service, we
consult Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 (Reissue 2016), which
dictates that personal service “shall be made by leaving the
summons with the individual to be served” and that residence
service “shall be made by leaving the summons at the usual
place of residence of the individual to be served, with some
24 § 77-1832 (emphasis supplied).
25 Wisner v. Vandelay Investments, 300 Neb. 825, 916 N.W.2d 698 (2018).
26 § 77-1832(1)(a).

- 297 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
person of suitable age and discretion residing therein.” We
hold that in § 77-1832(1)(a), personal service means service
made by leaving the notice with the individual to be served
and residence service means service made by leaving the
notice at the usual place of residence of the individual to be
served, with some person of suitable age and discretion resid-
ing therein.
[11] Finally, § 77-1834, in relevant part, has consistently
permitted published notice if a person entitled to notice “can-
not, upon diligent inquiry, be found.” Although the personal
and residence service requirements of § 77-1832 are new and
have not been interpreted in any of our previous decisions,
the potential alternative of published notice remains in place.
What differed in the amendment to § 77-1834 was the spe-
cific reference to the new requirement of § 77-1832: “If any
person . . . who is entitled to notice under subsection (1) of
section 77-1832 cannot, upon diligent inquiry, be found . .
. .” (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, under §§ 77-1831, 77-1832,
and 77-1834, the Legislature intended that notice of intent
to apply for a treasurer’s tax deed be given by personal or
residence service both upon a person in actual possession or
occupancy of the real property and upon the person in whose
name the title to the real property appears of record who can
be found in this state.
If such persons “cannot be served by personal or residence
service,” or “cannot be found in this state,” § 77-1832 permits
service by certified mail or designated delivery. Notice by
publication is permitted under § 77-1834 only if such persons
“cannot, upon diligent inquiry, be found.”
[12,13] The meaning of “found” is settled. The word
“found” in § 77-1834 means able to be served. 27 It is to be
presumed that the Legislature, in using language in a statute,
gave to it the significance that had been previously accorded
to it by the pronouncements of this court unless a different
27 Wisner v. Vandelay Investments, supra note 25.

- 298 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
meaning has been provided by the context of the statute. 28
The most recent amendment to § 77-1834 gave no indication
of any intention to change that meaning. 29
LLH4 relies upon a purported failed attempt to serve
Castillo. Before considering whether its affidavit and sup-
porting documentation satisfied the requirements for proof of
service, we outline those statutory requirements.
(b) Proof of Service of Notice
In this situation, two statutes govern requirements of proof
of service of notice that must be provided to a county treasurer
being requested to issue a tax deed. Although these statutes
contain numerous requirements, we focus only on the aspects
driving our decision here.
First, § 77-1833 provides, in part, that “[t]he service of
notice provided by section 77-1832 shall be proved by affida-
vit.” (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, we must examine the affidavit
that LLH4 filed with the county treasurer.
[14] Second, § 77-1833 requires that the affidavit be filed
with supporting documents. For personal or residence service,
“the receipt or returns provided by the person authorized in
subsection (2) of section 77-1832 to carry out such service
shall be filed with and accompany the affidavit.” 30 Under
§ 77-1833, to provide proof of notice by another method,
proof of attempted personal or residence service must be
established by affidavit.
Finally, § 77-1837(1) enumerates the items that must be
included in the application for a treasurer’s tax deed. We
recognize that the Legislature amended § 77-1837 in 2023, 31
but that amendment does not apply here. The controlling ver-
sion of § 77-1837(1) (Cum. Supp. 2022) required LLH4 to
28 Durfee v. Keiffer, 168 Neb. 272, 95 N.W.2d 618 (1959).
29 See 2019 Neb. Laws, L.B. 463.
30 § 77-1833.
31 See 2023 Neb. Laws, L.B. 727, § 55.

- 299 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
provide, among other things, “(c) [f]or any notice provided
pursuant to section 77-1832, the affidavit proving service of
notice . . . .” With these statutes in mind, we turn to the par-
ties’ arguments.
3. Parties’ Arguments
Importantly, LLH4 does not dispute that it failed to effectu-
ate personal or residence service upon Castillo, even though
he was a “person . . . who is entitled to notice under subsec-
tion (1) of section 77-1832.” 32 Citing two prior cases, 33 LLH4
contends that it was permitted to provide notice by publication
and did so.
Castillo makes several counterarguments based on the plain
language of §§ 77-1832 and 77-1834 and relying on the evi-
dence presented by LLH4 at trial. First, Castillo contends
that he was entitled to “[p]ersonal or residence service.” 34 He
further argues that service by certified mail was not permit-
ted because “[LLH4’s] efforts were insufficient” 35 to establish
that he “cannot be served by personal or residence service.” 36
Finally, Castillo argues that notice by publication was not
permitted because the facts did not support a conclusion that
he “cannot, upon diligent inquiry, be found.” 37
4. Resolution
[15] A county treasurer’s tax deed is presumptive evidence
that the procedures required by law to make a good and
valid tax sale and vest title in the purchaser were done. 38 The
presumption is not conclusive and may be rebutted, but the
32 § 77-1834.
33 HBI, L.L.C. v. Barnette, 305 Neb. 457, 941 N.W.2d 158 (2020); Wisner v.
Vandelay Investments, supra note 25.
34 § 77-1832(1)(a).
35 Brief for appellee at 6.
36 § 77-1832(1)(a).
37 § 77-1834.
38 Wisner v. Vandelay Investments, supra note 25. See § 77-1842.

- 300 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
burden is upon the party attacking the validity of such a deed
to show by competent evidence some jurisdictional defect
voiding the deed. 39 We conclude that Castillo has met his bur-
den of rebutting the statutory presumption that LLH4’s notice
and proof were sufficient.
(a) Additional Background
At trial, Castillo testified that he was not aware of any
issue with his ownership of the property until after the tax
deed was issued. He introduced several exhibits, including his
deed for the property and a certified copy of LLH4’s applica-
tion for the treasurer’s tax deed. The application consisted
of 22 pages and included several documents. We discuss the
pertinent documents in detail.
First, 	the 	application 	included 	the 	affidavit 	of 	LLH4’s
attorney. The affidavit set forth 12 enumerated paragraphs.
Paragraphs 1 through 5 recounted basic information regard-
ing the attorney, the property, the tax certificate, and the title
search. Paragraphs 6 through 11 pertained to service of notice.
In this regard, the affidavit stated:
6. [LLH4], as purchaser of Tax Sale Certificate, served,
or caused to be served the Notice of Application for Tax
Deed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1831, 77-1832,
77-1834, and/or 77-1835 to all persons and entities who
were entitled to notice, as described below. The Notice
of Application for Tax Deed was served more than three
(3) months prior to the application for treasurer’s tax
deed. The Notice of Application for Tax Deed is attached
hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein pursuant
to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1833.
7. [LLH4] served, or caused to be served, the Notice
of Application for Tax Deed by personal or residential
service as described in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01 upon
a person in actual possession or occupancy of the Real
Estate and upon the person in whose name the title to
39 Wisner v. Vandelay Investments, supra note 25.

- 301 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
the Real Estate appears of record who could be found
in this state. Copies of the service returns are attached
hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein pursuant
to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1833.
8. If the person in actual possession or occupancy
of the Real Estate could not be served by personal or
residential service, then the Notice of Application for Tax
Deed was served or caused to be served by certified mail
service, as described in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01, to
the address of the property, if any.
9. If the person in whose name the title to the Real
Estate appears of record could not be found in this state
or could not be served by personal or residential ser-
vice, then the Notice of Application for Tax Deed was
served or caused to be served by certified mail service, as
described in Section 25-505.01, to the address to which
the property tax statement was mailed.
10. [LLH4] served, or caused to be served, the Notice
of Application for Tax Deed by certified mail service,
as described in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-505.01, upon every
encumbrancer of record found by the title search of the
Real Estate pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1832. Copies
of all original certified mail return receipts and enve-
lopes are attached hereto as Exhibit “E” and incorporated
herein pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1833.
11. Because one or more of the encumbrancers of
record, persons in possession or occupancy, or title
holders of record could not be served pursuant to Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 77-1832, [LLH4] caused the Notice of
Application for Tax Deed to be served by publication in
accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1834 and 77-1835
The Daily Record, a newspaper published in Douglas
County, and having a general circulation in Douglas
County, which notice was published for three consecu-
tive weeks, with the last publication not being less than
three months prior to the application for the tax deed.

- 302 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
Proof of publication by affidavit of the publisher, man-
ager or other employee of The Daily Record is attached
hereto as Exhibit “F” and incorporated herein.
Second, the application contained two documents signed
by an unnamed constable, indicating that the constable was
unable to serve Castillo with the notice. The first document
stated: “I received this Document on the 24th Day of May,
2022. I was unable to locate Any Persons at [the property’s
street address.] I am returning the document unserved.” The
second document contained the same statement with one
exception; it referred to “Eduardo D T Castillo” rather than
“Any Persons.”
Below the statements, the two documents contained blank
spaces labeled “Constable,” “Service Cost,” “Mileage,” and
“TOTAL.” There were handwritten signatures above the word
“Constable” and handwritten numbers above the remaining
blank spaces. The two documents were unsworn and contained
no other information.
Fourth, the application included documentation of vari-
ous attempts at certified mail service. It appears that on
June 16, 2022, Guardian sent notice by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the property’s street address. Although
Castillo resided there, the notice was returned as “unclaimed.”
Handwriting and date stamps on the certified mail envelopes
sent to the property suggest that the post office made three
attempts—on June 16, June 28, and July 3—to deliver the
notice prior to returning it as unclaimed.
Finally, the application included a copy of the proof of
published notice in The Daily Record, a legal newspaper in
Douglas County, on June 29, July 6, and July 13, 2022.
LLH4 adduced the testimony of two witnesses at trial,
the constable and an employee of Guardian who filed the
application on LLH4’s behalf. As relevant here, the constable
testified that on May 25, 2022, he attempted to serve Castillo
with notice at the property but “nobody was available.” The
constable further testified that he left a “card” with his name

- 303 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
and contact information at the property so that Castillo could
call him, but he did not receive a call from Castillo.
(b) Discussion
(i) Purported Proof Under § 77-1833
Upon our review, LLH4’s application for the treasurer’s tax
deed failed to provide proof of service in the manner required
under § 77-1833. As noted above, “The service of notice
provided by section 77-1832 shall be proved by affidavit.” 40
Although LLH4’s application included the affidavit of its attor-
ney, the affidavit was deficient.
[16,17] We recall basic principles. As defined by statute,
“An affidavit is a written declaration under oath, made with-
out notice to the adverse party.” 41 It is the general rule that
an affidavit should be made by one having actual knowledge
of the facts, and its allegations should be of the pertinent
facts and circumstances, rather than conclusions, and should
be full, certain, and exact. 42 Stated differently, statements in
affidavits as to opinion, belief, or conclusions of law are of
no effect. 43
Here, to the extent that LLH4’s affidavit purported to pro-
vide proof of attempted personal or residence service, it was
not made by one having actual knowledge of the facts. The
affidavit also failed to set forth pertinent facts and circum-
stances proving the necessity of serving or providing notice
by another method. The allegations were mere conclusions
of law.
The sixth paragraph of the affidavit vaguely stated that
LLH4 “served, or caused to be served the Notice of Application
for Tax Deed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1831, 77-1832,
40 § 77-1833.
41 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1241 (Reissue 2016).
42 Caha v. Nelson, 195 Neb. 333, 237 N.W.2d 870 (1976).
43 Cullinane v. Beverly Enters. - Neb., 300 Neb. 210, 912 N.W.2d 774
(2018).

- 304 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
77-1834, and/or 77-1835 to all persons and entities who
were entitled to notice, as described below.” This language is
imprecise and does not set forth any facts proving service of
notice. And while paragraph 11 vaguely referred to an inabil-
ity to effectuate service, it did not set forth facts supporting
that conclusion.
Nor was the affidavit “full, certain, and exact.” 44 Notably,
several 	paragraphs 	contradicted 	LLH4’s 	representations 	at
trial and on appeal that service was not effectuated. Some
paragraphs consisted entirely of “if-then” statements, rather
than facts.
These vague recitations of statutory language peppered
with conditional statements are not facts proving valid ser-
vice of notice. The affidavit failed to set forth the who, what,
when, where, and how regarding the efforts made to accom-
plish personal or residence service. In the absence of any
such specific facts, the affidavit of LLH4’s attorney failed to
show that Castillo “cannot be served by personal or residence
service,” 45 that he “cannot be found in this state,” 46 or that
he “cannot, upon diligent inquiry, be found.” 47 In sum, the
affidavit failed to set forth the purported circumstances per-
mitting notice other than by personal or residence service. It
needed to do so.
Finally, to the extent that LLH4 relied on the documents
signed by the constable—or the constable’s testimony—as
proof of attempted service, it failed to provide proof in the
manner required under § 77-1833. While the documents signed
by the constable stated the date upon which the constable
received the notice, they did not set forth any information
regarding the purported attempt to serve the notice upon
Castillo. They did not include, for example, the date, time,
44 Caha v. Nelson, supra note 42, 195 Neb. at 338, 237 N.W.2d at 873.
45 § 77-1832(1)(a).
46 Id.
47 § 77-1834.

- 305 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
location, or manner of the attempted service. More impor-
tantly, they were not affidavits. This court has rejected proof of
service made solely by an ordinary form return. 48
[18] Further, the deficiencies in LLH4’s application could
not be cured by presenting the constable’s testimony at trial.
LLH4 called the constable to testify regarding the attempted
personal or residence service. But the validity of the treas-
urer’s tax deed depends upon compliance with the statutory
requirements. 49 We therefore hold that proof of service of
notice under § 77-1833 must be made by affidavit and filed
with the application for a treasurer’s tax deed; it cannot be
cured or supplemented by evidence presented at trial.
(ii) Prior Cases
We also reject LLH4’s argument based upon Wisner v.
Vandelay Investments 50 and HBI, L.L.C. v. Barnette. 51 In those
cases, we held that § 77-1834 authorized the holder of a
tax certificate to provide notice by publication if the record
owner was unable to be served by certified mail at the address
where the property tax statement was mailed, upon proof of
compliance with § 77-1832, if the owner in fact lived at such
address. Similarly, LLH4 relies upon the unclaimed certified
mail envelopes.
But the version of § 77-1832 governing those prior cases
designated certified mail as the required method of service. 52
It then provided, in relevant part, that “[s]ervice of the notice
provided by section 77-1831 shall be made by certified mail,
return receipt requested, upon the person in whose name the
title to the real property appears of record to the address where
the property tax statement was mailed . . . .” 53
48 See Peck v. Garfield County, supra note 12.
49 See Brokaw v. Cottrell, supra note 12.
50 Wisner v. Vandelay Investments, supra note 25.
51 HBI, L.L.C. v. Barnette, supra note 33.
52 See § 77-1832 (Reissue 2009).
53 Id. (emphasis supplied).

- 306 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
By contrast, the current version of § 77-1832 (Cum. Supp.
2022) requires “[p]ersonal or residence service as described
in section 25-505.01” upon a person in actual possession or
occupancy of the real property and upon the person in whose
name the title to the real property appears of record who can
be found in this state. (Emphasis supplied.) Section 77-1832
permits certified mail service only if such persons “cannot be
served by personal or residence service” or if the record owner
“cannot be found in this state.”
Because § 77-1832 now requires “[p]ersonal or residence
service” and permits certified mail service only in limited
circumstances, LLH4’s reliance on our prior interpretation of
§ 77-1834 is misplaced. As we have long cautioned purchasers,
“‘When the statute, under which land is sold for taxes, directs
an act to be done, or prescribes the form, time and manner of
doing any act, such act must be done, and in the form, time
and manner prescribed, or the title is invalid . . . .’” 54 That
applies here.
In sum, we conclude that LLH4’s treasurer’s tax deed was
void for failure to strictly comply with statutory notice and
proof requirements. We affirm the district court’s judgment.
5. Plain Error
[19,20] As a final matter, we exercise our discretion to
notice plain error. Although an appellate court ordinarily con-
siders only those errors assigned and discussed in the briefs,
the appellate court may, at its option, notice plain error. 55
Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of
such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in
damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial
process. 56
[21-23] We note plain error in the failure to determine
the precise payment due from Castillo. The relief ordinarily
54 Brokaw v. Cottrell, supra note 12, 114 Neb. at 863, 211 N.W. at 186.
55 Cain v. Custer Cty. Bd. of Equal., 291 Neb. 730, 868 N.W.2d 334 (2015).
56 Noland v. Yost, 315 Neb. 568, 998 N.W.2d 57 (2023).

- 307 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
CASTILLO v. LIBERT LAND HOLDINGS 4
Cite as 316 Neb. 287
granted in equity is such as the nature of the case, the law,
and the facts demand. 57 In quiet title actions, one who seeks
equity must do equity. 58 Here, the judgment properly quieted
title in Castillo and directed him to reimburse LLH4 and
Guardian for any delinquent taxes paid by them, with interest.
But, the court did not determine the precise amount of pay-
ment due from Castillo. A judgment for money must specify
with definiteness and certainty the amount for which it is
rendered. 59 We must remand the cause with directions to cure
that error.
VI. CONCLUSION
The district court properly declared that the treasurer’s tax
deed was void due to LLH4’s failure to comply with statutory
notice and proof requirements. We remand the cause to the
district court with directions to specify the precise amount of
taxes and accrued interest at a rate of 14 percent per annum,
to be paid by a date certain into the registry of the court, for
disbursement by the court to LLH4 and/or Guardian. We affirm
the court’s decree in all other respects.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Funke, J., participating on briefs.
57 Adair Holdings v. Johnson, supra note 2.
58 Id.
59 Lenz v. Lenz, 222 Neb. 85, 382 N.W.2d 323 (1986).