Anderson v. Finkle, 296 Neb. 797

Background

In May 2013, Finkle signed a promissory note to Anderson for $50,000 (5% interest) to fund an LLC venture; Finkle did not pay back the note after the venture failed.
Anderson sued Finkle for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; trial was held August 25, 2015.
Anderson died on October 2, 2015; his personal representative 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 occurred after Anderson’s death and before a revivor order.
The estate filed a motion for revivor on 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: (1) February 25, 2016 (from the postdeath judgment and denial of new trial) and (2) March 22, 2016 (from the revivor order and underlying judgments).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter judgment and rule on posttrial motions after Anderson’s death but before revivor	Anderson (estate) implicitly treated the November judgment as valid and later sought revivor to continue the case	Finkle: court lacked jurisdiction after plaintiff’s death until the action was revived, so postdeath orders are void	Court: judgment and denial of new trial entered after death were void for lack of jurisdiction because revivor had not occurred
Whether a notice of appeal from a nonappealable/void order confers appellate jurisdiction	Anderson: not directly argued to revive jurisdiction	Finkle: his early appeal should preserve review	Court: an appeal from a nonappealable or void order does not confer appellate jurisdiction; the trial court remained competent to enter revivor order
Whether the revivor order was a final, appealable order	Estate: revivor properly filed and should allow appeal of underlying matters	Finkle: appealed the revivor order and underlying orders	Court: an order reviving an action is not a final appealable order; appeal from revivor must be dismissed for lack of finality
Validity/enforceability of the promissory note (parol evidence, consideration, testimony credibility)	Anderson: promissory note was valid and enforceable; trial court properly applied evidentiary rules	Finkle: trial court misapplied parol evidence rule, failed to discredit changed testimony, and erred on consideration and liability issues	Court did not reach merits because appeals dismissed for jurisdictional/finality defects

Key Cases Cited

Platte Valley Nat. Bank v. Lasen, 273 Neb. 602 (discusses revivor procedure and that revivor orders are not final)
Fox v. Nick, 265 Neb. 986 (death of a party suspends action until revived; postdeath orders have no force)
In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 (statutory interpretation and jurisdictional principles)
State v. Bracey, 261 Neb. 14 (void orders entered without jurisdiction are nullities)
Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713 (revivor orders and appealability)
In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760 (reiterating that revivor orders are not final)
Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81 (finality requirement for appellate jurisdiction)