Anderson v. Finkle, 296 Neb. 797

Background

In May 2013, Finkle signed a $50,000 promissory note payable to Anderson to fund an LLC venture; Finkle did not repay after the venture failed.
Anderson sued for breach of contract and quantum meruit; 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 motion for new trial on January 29, 2016 — both 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/order denying new trial (filed Feb. 25, 2016) and (2) from the March 1, 2016 revivor order (filed Mar. 22, 2016).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter judgment and deny the new trial after plaintiff’s death but before revivor	Anderson (estate) implicitly contends posttrial orders are valid once personal representative is later substituted	Finkle argues orders entered after Anderson’s death and before revivor are void for lack of jurisdiction	Court held the court lacked jurisdiction to enter those orders after plaintiff’s death and before revivor; those orders are void
Whether a pending action must be revived following a party’s death before further orders bind the estate	Anderson’s position: revival motion (later granted) validates continuation and prior orders	Finkle: failure to revive before judgment means prior orders have no force against the estate	Court held a pending action must be revived per statute; failure to revive suspends the action and makes subsequent orders ineffective as to the deceased party
Whether a notice of appeal from a nonappealable/void order confers appellate jurisdiction	Anderson (estate) contends appeals properly filed and should be entertained after revivor	Finkle contends appeals from void/nonfinal orders cannot confer jurisdiction	Court held notice of appeal from a void/nonfinal order does not confer appellate jurisdiction; appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the appeals
Whether the revivor order was immediately appealable	Anderson (estate) implicitly treats revivor as proper and appealable	Finkle appealed the revivor order and underlying judgments	Court held an order reviving an action is not a final, appealable order; appeal from revivor dismissed for lack of finality

Key Cases Cited

Platte Valley Nat. Bank v. Lasen, 273 Neb. 602 (discusses revival and procedure when a party dies)
Fox v. Nick, 265 Neb. 986 (explains abatement, suspension, and need for statutory revivor)
In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 (addresses jurisdictional limits and revivor principles)
Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713 (holds an order reviving an action is not a final appealable order)
State v. Bracey, 261 Neb. 14 (void orders and their effect on appellate jurisdiction)