Anderson v. Finkle, 296 Neb. 797

In May 2013 Finkle signed a $50,000 promissory note payable to Steven B. Anderson; Finkle failed to pay after the business venture funded by the loan failed.
Anderson sued Finkle for breach of contract and quantum meruit; bench trial occurred August 25, 2015.
Anderson died on October 2, 2015; a personal representative (Janice M. Anderson) was appointed October 30, 2015.
The district court entered judgment for Anderson on November 30, 2015, and later denied Finkle’s new-trial motion on January 29, 2016 — both actions occurring after Anderson’s death and before formal revivor.
The estate filed a motion for revivor on January 25, 2016; the district court entered an order of revivor on March 1, 2016.
Finkle filed two appeals: (1) from the posttrial judgment/new-trial denial (filed February 25, 2016), and (2) from the March 1, 2016 revivor order and underlying rulings (filed March 22, 2016).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter judgment and deny new trial after plaintiff's death but before revivor	Anderson (estate) implicitly: judgment valid and later revived	Finkle: court lacked jurisdiction after Anderson's death; orders are void	Court: Orders entered after death and before revivor were void for lack of jurisdiction; appeal from them did not confer appellate jurisdiction
Whether the trial court's post-death revivor order is appealable immediately	Estate: revivor properly granted under statutes; supports proceeding	Finkle: challenged revivor and sought review now	Court: Order of revivor is not a final, appealable order; appeal must be dismissed
Validity/enforceability of the promissory note (parol evidence, consideration, testimony credibility)	Anderson: note valid and enforceable; parol evidence excluded; consideration existed	Finkle: trial court misapplied parol evidence rule, testimony unreliable, no consideration, no personal liability	Court did not reach merits because appellate jurisdiction lacking; underlying judgment void and dismissed
Effect of improper appeal timing on district-court jurisdiction between notices	Estate: earlier appeal did not divest district court	Finkle: earlier appeal should affect later proceedings	Court: Notice of appeal from nonappealable/void order does not confer appellate jurisdiction or divest district court; revivor stands but revivor order not presently appealable

Platte Valley Nat. Bank v. Lasen, 273 Neb. 602 (discusses revivor and nonfinality of revival orders)
Fox v. Nick, 265 Neb. 986 (death of party suspends action until revivor; orders entered without revivor are void)
In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 (statutory interpretation and jurisdiction principles)
State v. Bracey, 261 Neb. 14 (void orders are nullities)
Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713 (revivor order nonfinal; appellate jurisdiction limits)
In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760 (reiterates that revivor orders are not final)
Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81 (finality requirement for appeals)
Street v. Smith, 75 Neb. 434 (early Nebraska precedent on effect of death on pending actions)