## Facts

- James and Jeffrey Tierney owned residential lots immediately south of a parcel in Lincoln County, Nebraska, where a sand and gravel pit was proposed and later operated.
- The parcel, originally a hayfield, was zoned A-1 Agricultural; Four H Land Company Limited Partnership sought a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a sand and gravel pit.
- After an initial CUP was set aside for procedural defects, Four H reapplied in 1998; the Tierneys objected.
- In 1998, the Tierneys, Four H, and Western Engineering Company entered a written agreement settling the CUP dispute.
- The Tierneys agreed to waive their right to contest the CUP; in exchange, Four H and Western accepted operational conditions, including post-CUP reclamation.
- The agreement contemplated reclamation restoring the land to its prior condition by filling the pit, covering it with topsoil, and seeding native grasses.
- Four H and Western operated the pit for about a decade without performing reclamation while mining; an existing lake expanded from about 11 acres to about 30 acres.
- Four H later sold the property to the Aloi Living Trust, but Four H and Western remained parties to the 1998 agreement.
- In 2009, the Tierneys sued for specific performance of the reclamation obligations; the district court found breach but dismissed, reasoning that reclamation was a massive project and unjust to compel.
- The Tierneys appealed in an equity action.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1998 settlement agreement contained sufficiently definite, enforceable reclamation obligations to support specific performance.
2. Whether specific performance was an appropriate equitable remedy despite the expense and difficulty of reclamation after substantial mining and lake expansion.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded with directions to order specific performance.
- The court held the 1998 agreement was a valid, enforceable contract with clear reclamation duties.
- The court concluded Four H and Western breached by failing to reclaim as mining progressed and by leaving the enlarged lake and excavated conditions.
- The court rejected the district court’s denial of specific performance based on hardship, reasoning the burden was foreseeable and tied to the obligors’ conduct after accepting the bargain.

## Legal Principles

- Specific performance is available only for a valid, legally enforceable contract, and the party seeking it must have substantially complied with the contract.
- Contract provisions must be read together; a contract is ambiguous only if it is susceptible to at least two reasonable, conflicting interpretations.
- Specific performance generally should be granted for a fair, certain written contract capable of enforcement without undue hardship when justice is served.
- A court may deny specific performance where enforcement would be oppressive or impracticable, but substantial cost or difficulty does not alone bar relief when the obligor knowingly assumed the duty and benefited from nonperformance.
- In disputes centered on the physical condition and use of real property, damages may be inadequate, making specific performance an appropriate remedy.

## Conclusion

The court required Four H and Western to specifically perform the settlement agreement’s reclamation obligations, holding that clear, bargained-for land-restoration duties are enforceable in equity even when compliance is expensive, absent a compelling showing that enforcement would be unjust.


Tierney v. Four H Land Co. Ltd. P'ship, 288 Neb. 586, 852 N.W.2d 292 (Neb. 2014)