Anderson v. Finkle, 296 Neb. 797

Background

Plaintiff Steven B. Anderson sued defendant Steve Finkle for breach of a $50,000 promissory note and quantum meruit after Finkle failed to pay.
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, and later denied Finkle’s posttrial motion on January 29, 2016—both actions occurring after Anderson’s death and before formal revivor.
The estate filed a motion for revivor January 25, 2016; the district court entered an order reviving the action in the personal representative’s name on March 1, 2016.
Finkle filed two appeals: one from the posttrial orders (filed Feb. 25, 2016) and one from the March 1, 2016 order of revivor (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 motion after plaintiff’s death but before revivor	Anderson (estate) implicitly asserted the judgment and posttrial rulings remained valid and later revived the action	Finkle argued the court lacked jurisdiction after Anderson’s death and thus post-death orders are void	Court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment or decide the new-trial motion after death; those orders are void
Whether a pending action must be revived per statute after a party dies	Anderson’s estate relied on statutory revivor to give force to the judgment	Finkle argued revivor had not occurred when judgment was entered, so judgment is ineffective against the estate	Court held statutory revivor is required; absence of timely revivor means prior orders have no force as to decedent’s estate
Whether the order of revivor is immediately appealable	Estate treated the revivor as proper and final for purposes of defending the judgment	Finkle appealed the revivor and underlying rulings	Court held an order reviving an action is not a final, appealable order; appeal from it must be dismissed
Merits challenges to enforceability of the promissory note (parol evidence, credibility, consideration, personal liability)	Anderson argued the note was valid and enforceable as interpreted by the trial court	Finkle argued trial court misapplied parol evidence rule, testimony credibility issues, lack of consideration, and contested personal liability	Court dismissed merits review because appeals were untimely/defective due to lack of appellate jurisdiction; did not reach substantive holdings

Key Cases Cited

Platte Valley Nat. Bank v. Lasen, 273 Neb. 602 (requir[es] revivor procedures and finality principles in death-of-party contexts)
Fox v. Nick, 265 Neb. 986 (statutory revivor required; orders entered after death without revivor have no force)
In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 (discussing jurisdictional and statutory interpretation principles)
State v. Bracey, 261 Neb. 14 (void orders lacking jurisdiction are nullities)
In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760 (order reviving an action is not final and not immediately appealable)
Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713 (orders reviving actions are nonfinal)
Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81 (appellate jurisdiction requires final, appealable orders)