132 Ventures v. Active Spine Physical Therapy, 13 N.W.3d 441

132 Ventures, LLC (Ventures), purchased a commercial property at foreclosure and sued Active Spine Physical Therapy, LLC (Active Spine) and its two owners (the Muchowiczes) for breach of lease and personal guarantee after Active Spine failed to pay rent and CAM charges.
Originally, Active Spine leased the property from DEMU Properties, LLC (DEMU), with a 20-year lease term and personal guarantees signed by the Muchowiczes; DEMU lost the property after financing fell through.
The lease required the landlord to provide an annual notice of budgeted CAM (direct expenses), with tenants to pay a share monthly; disputes later arose over performance of this provision.
After foreclosure, Ventures became landlord and Active Spine continued to occupy the property without paying rent or CAM, leading to eviction and a subsequent suit for damages and unpaid charges.
At trial on remand, evidence included management records (invoices, ledgers, and reconciliations) admitted as business records, with a jury finding for Ventures and awarding $593,723.82 in damages.
Active Spine and the Muchowiczes appealed, challenging the admission of certain exhibits, the denial of their motions for new trial/JNOV, and damages calculations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Exhibits as Business Records or Summaries	Exhibits are business records prepared in ordinary course, so are admissible	Exhibits are summaries of voluminous writings, requiring compliance with special rules; foundation not established	District court did not abuse discretion; exhibits are admissible business records, not secondary summaries
Failure to Provide Budgeted Direct Expenses Notice	Substantial compliance with lease; monthly invoices provided sufficient notice	Strict compliance required; no annual notice, so obligation to pay CAM not triggered	Substantial performance sufficient under contract law; failure to plead with specificity waives the defense
Calculation of Damages (May vs. June Start Date)	Ample evidence supports damages, monthly billing was proper	Damages incorrectly calculated from a start date one month early, affecting late fees and totals	Not preserved for review; not presented at trial with specificity
Forcible Detainer Proceedings & COVID-19 Abatement	Right to evict for unpaid rent was valid and adjudicated; law of the case	Ongoing COVID-19 abatement excused nonpayment; error in eviction without jury	Argument procedurally barred; prior decision is law of the case

Crowder v. Aurora Co-op Elev. Co., 223 Neb. 704 (sets standard for admissibility of summaries/business records)
Commerce Sav. Scottsbluff v. F.H. Schafer Elev., 231 Neb. 288 (sufficiency of evidence for jury verdict)
Bradley T. & Donna T. v. Central Catholic High Sch., 264 Neb. 951 (standard for granting new trials)
In re Estate of Koetter, 312 Neb. 549 (de novo review standard for JNOV)
Groenewold v. Building Movers, Inc., 197 Neb. 187 (business records vs. summaries distinction)
de Vries v. L & L Custom Builders, 310 Neb. 543 (waiver of unrequested jury instructions)
Dick v. Koski Prof. Group, 307 Neb. 599 (definition of condition precedent in contract)
Siouxland Ethanol v. Sebade Bros., 290 Neb. 230 (fact questions on material breach/substantial performance)