25-1518. Levy of execution.

365 words·~2 min read·/ne/chapter-25/25-1518

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

The officer to whom a writ of execution is delivered shall proceed immediately to levy the same upon the goods and chattels of the debtor; but if no goods and chattels can be found, the officer shall endorse on the writ of execution no goods, and forthwith levy the writ of execution upon the lands and tenements of the debtor, which may be liable to satisfy the judgment.

Unless a judgment creditor shows that a judgment debtor has fraudulently transferred real property to avoid creditors, the relevant question for the remedy of execution is whether the debtor has any interest in the property. Fox v. Whitbeck, 286 Neb. 134, 835 N.W.2d 638 (2013).

Absent exigent circumstances, the rule which applies before an officer may enter a home to seize property or arrest a person also applies to entering to secure property in satisfaction of a judgment. Such execution warrant should be obtained in a manner similar to that provided in sections 29-830 to 29-835 relating to inspection warrants. State v. Hinchey, 220 Neb. 825, 374 N.W.2d 14 (1985).

Where execution is levied on real estate fraudulently transferred, execution creditor may proceed in equity to set aside sale; return not necessary. Howard v. Raymers, 64 Neb. 213, 89 N.W. 1004 (1902).

Levy is effective though officer trespasses. Battle Creek Valley Bank v. First Nat. Bank of Madison, 62 Neb. 825, 88 N.W. 145 (1901).

Growing crops are personal property. Sims v. Jones, 54 Neb. 769, 75 N.W. 150 (1898).

Where personalty is sold before realty, latter may be levied on before advertisement and sale of former. Runge v. Brown, 29 Neb. 116, 45 N.W. 271 (1890).

Levy upon growing crops does not require any act on the part of the officer which, but for the protection of the writ, would make him a trespasser. Johnson v. Walker, 23 Neb. 736, 37 N.W. 639 (1888).

Return of execution after levy without sale does not prevent plaintiff from issuing another execution on same property. Reynolds v. Cobb, 15 Neb. 378, 19 N.W. 502 (1884).

A manual interference with chattels is not essential to a valid levy thereon. State v. Griess, 11 Neb. App. 389, 651 N.W.2d 859 (2002).