Anderson v. Finkle, 296 Neb. 797

Background

Steven B. Anderson sued Steve Finkle for breach of a $50,000 promissory note (plus interest) after Finkle failed to pay following a failed business venture.
Trial occurred August 25, 2015; Anderson died 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 (apparently without knowledge of his death) and later denied Finkle’s posttrial motion on January 29, 2016.
The estate filed a motion for revivor January 25, 2016; the court issued an order reviving the action in the estate’s name on March 1, 2016.
Finkle filed two appeals: (1) from the postjudgment denial of his new-trial motion (filed Feb. 25, 2016) and (2) from the revivor order and underlying orders (filed Mar. 22, 2016).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court had jurisdiction to enter judgment and deny new trial after plaintiff’s death but before revivor	Anderson (estate) contended the posttrial orders were valid and could be revived and enforced	Finkle argued the court lost jurisdiction upon Anderson’s death and orders entered before revivor were void	Held: Court lacked jurisdiction after plaintiff’s death; the November 30 judgment and Jan 29 order were void because revivor had not occurred first
Whether an appeal from the void postdeath orders conferred appellate jurisdiction	Estate implicitly argued the appeal could proceed	Finkle argued the appeal could not cure trial court’s lack of jurisdiction	Held: Appeal from void/nonappealable order did not confer appellate jurisdiction; first appeal did not divest trial court
Validity/enforceability of the promissory note (parol evidence, consideration, testimony credibility)	Anderson asserted the note was valid and enforceable; trial court found in favor of Anderson on the merits	Finkle raised parol evidence, lack of consideration, testimonial credibility, and signing issues	Held: Merits challenges were not reached on appeal because the orders adjudicating them were void and appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/finality
Whether the revivor order is immediately appealable	Estate relied on revivor to validate proceedings	Finkle appealed the revivor order and underlying judgments	Held: An order reviving an action is not a final, appealable order; appeal of revivor (second appeal) dismissed for lack of final order

Key Cases Cited

Platte Valley Nat. Bank v. Lasen, 273 Neb. 602 (discusses revivor procedure and nonfinal nature of certain revival orders)
Fox v. Nick, 265 Neb. 986 (death of party suspends action until revivor; orders entered without revivor have no force)
In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 (statutory interpretation and jurisdiction principles)
State v. Bracey, 261 Neb. 14 (void orders and lack of jurisdiction)
In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760 (order reviving action is not final and not immediately appealable)
Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713 (procedural principles on appeals from nonfinal orders)
Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81 (finality requirement for appellate jurisdiction)