Anderson v. Finkle
296 Neb. 797
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In May 2013, Finkle signed a promissory note obligating him to pay Anderson $50,000 plus 5% interest; funds were transferred to an LLC venture that failed.
- Anderson sued Finkle (breach of contract and quantum meruit); trial occurred Aug 25, 2015.
- Anderson died on Oct 2, 2015; a personal representative was appointed on Oct 30, 2015.
- The district court entered judgment for Anderson on Nov 30, 2015 and later denied Finkle’s posttrial motion on Jan 29, 2016 — both actions occurred after Anderson’s death but before formal revivor.
- The estate filed a motion for revivor on Jan 25, 2016; the court entered an order reviving the action in the personal representative’s name on Mar 1, 2016.
- Finkle filed two appeals: one from the postdeath judgment/denial of new trial, and one from the revivor order (and underlying orders). The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed both appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter judgment and deny the new-trial motion after the plaintiff’s death but before revivor | Anderson (estate) implicitly contended the posttrial orders were valid and later cured by revivor | Finkle argued the court lost jurisdiction on plaintiff’s death and thus postdeath orders are void | Court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction after death until revivor; postdeath judgment and denial of new trial were void |
| Whether an appeal from the postdeath, nonfinal/void orders conferred appellate jurisdiction | Anderson’s position: not separately preserved; revivor validated proceedings | Finkle: his notice of appeal preserved review and divested the trial court | Court held the appeal from void/nonappealable orders did not confer appellate jurisdiction; first appeal did not divest trial court |
| Whether the order reviving the action is immediately appealable | Estate proceeded under revivor statutes and treated order as curative | Finkle appealed revivor order and underlying judgments | Court held an order reviving an action is not a final, appealable order; appeal from revivor must await final judgment |
| Validity/enforceability of the promissory note (parol evidence, credibility, consideration, personal liability) | Anderson argued the note was valid/enforceable and judgment on the note was proper | Finkle argued trial court misapplied parol evidence rule, failed to discount changed testimony, lacked consideration, and improperly imposed personal liability | Court did not reach merits: dismissed appeals for lack of jurisdiction, so substantive challenges were not adjudicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Platte Valley Nat. Bank v. Lasen, 273 Neb. 602 (statutory revivor procedure and nonfinal nature of revivor orders)
- Fox v. Nick, 265 Neb. 986 (death suspends action and revivor required; postdeath orders void)
- In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 (statutory interpretation and jurisdictional principles)
- State v. Bracey, 261 Neb. 14 (void orders are nullities)
- In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760 (order reviving an action is not final)
- Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713 (appeals from nonfinal revivor-type orders)
- Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81 (finality requirement for appellate jurisdiction)
- Street v. Smith, 75 Neb. 434 (early precedent on suspension of action by death)