Artisan Pools, Inc. v. Siemer

── Artisan Pools, Inc. v. Siemer ── Court: Nebraska Court of Appeals Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) ARTISAN POOLS, INC. V. SIEMER NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). ARTISAN POOLS, INC., A NEBRASKA CORPORATION, APPELLEE, V. JOSHUA SIEMER AND JENA SIEMER, INDIVIDUALS, APPELLANTS. Filed May 12, 2026. No. A-25-246. Appeal from the District Court for Washington County: ZACHARY L. BLACKMAN, Judge. Affirmed. Rhys T. Hansen and David V. Drew, of Drew Law Firm, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant. Oluseyi O. Olowolafe, of Olowolafe Law Firm, L.L.C., for appellee. RIEDMANN, Chief Judge, and BISHOP and FREEMAN, Judges. RIEDMANN, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Joshua Siemer and Jena Siemer appeal from the order of the district court for Washington County. The Siemers argue the court erred by finding that Artisan Pools, Inc. (hereinafter “Artisan”) did not act in bad faith when it filed or later refused to release its construction lien on their property. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. II. BACKGROUND In May 2023, Artisan, a company that builds residential in-ground pools, and the Siemers executed a written contract for Artisan to build a pool on the Siemers’ property. The contract was later modified to provide that construction of the pool would be completed in stages and the Siemers would pay a percentage of the total contract price at the completion of each stage. -1-  The Siemers made the required payments until Artisan requested the final payment on July 31, 2023. The Siemers refused to disperse the final payment because they were dissatisfied with aspects of Artisan’s work. After some conversations regarding the Siemers’ grievances, communication between Artisan and the Siemers broke down. After a heated conversation between Artisan’s owner, K.C. Barth, and Joshua, Barth sent Joshua a text message on September 15, terminating the parties’ contract, and stating that Artisan intended to sue the Siemers and file a lien on their property the next week. Through counsel, the Siemers sent Artisan a letter later in September 2023, setting forth various issues they had with the pool, including that a required inspection by the city had not been completed. On December 1, Artisan called the city inspector, and the inspection of the pool was completed in early January 2024. On January 25, 2024, Artisan filed a construction lien on the Siemers’ property. In the lien application, Artisan stated that the Siemers had not made the final payment under the contract, and it identified December 1, 2023, as the last date on which it had provided materials or services. Artisan never sent a copy of the lien to the Siemers. On February 6, 2024, the Siemers’ attorney sent a letter to Artisan, demanding that it release the lien. This letter stated the lien was void because it overstated the amount due under the contract, it misidentified the last date services were performed, and the Siemers did not receive the legally required notice. However, Artisan did not release the lien. The Siemers’ attorney sent another letter on February 16, 2024, informing Artisan that the Siemers had “gone under contract” to sell their home and demanding again that Artisan release its lien because it was invalid for the same reasons listed in the February 6 letter. Artisan still did not release the lien. In March 2024, Artisan filed a complaint against the Siemers in the district court, seeking foreclosure on the construction lien and damages for brea