Anderson v. Finkle, 296 Neb. 797

Background

In May 2013, Finkle signed a promissory note to pay Anderson $50,000 plus 5% interest; funds were transferred to an LLC venture that failed shortly after opening.
Anderson sued Finkle (breach of contract and quantum meruit) and trial occurred on August 25, 2015.
Anderson died October 2, 2015; a personal representative (Janice M. Anderson) was appointed October 30, 2015.
The district court entered a judgment for Anderson on November 30, 2015 and later denied Finkle’s motion for new trial on January 29, 2016—both actions occurring after Anderson’s death and before formal revivor.
The estate moved for revivor on January 25, 2016; the court entered an order of revivor on March 1, 2016.
Finkle filed two appeals: one from the posttrial orders entered after Anderson’s death, and a second from the March 1, 2016 order of revivor (and underlying orders). The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed both appeals.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter judgment and rule on the motion for new trial after plaintiff’s death but before revivor	Anderson (estate) treated postdeath orders as valid and later obtained revivor	Finkle argued the court lost jurisdiction on plaintiff’s death and thus postdeath judgment and denial of new trial were void	Court held the actions taken after death and before revivor were void for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the order of revivor was appealable immediately	Estate proceeded with statutory revivor and treated revivor order as effective	Finkle appealed the revivor order (and underlying orders)	Court held an order reviving an action is not a final appealable order; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Enforceability of the promissory note (parol evidence, credibility, consideration, personal liability)	Anderson argued the promissory note was valid and enforceable	Finkle contended the court misapplied parol evidence rule, Anderson’s testimony was unreliable, there was no consideration, and Finkle was not personally liable	Court did not reach these merits on appeal because the postdeath orders were void and appeals lacked jurisdiction
Effect of a notice of appeal filed from a nonappealable/void order on subsequent trial-court acts	N/A	Finkle relied on timely filing to preserve review of orders	Court reiterated that notice of appeal from a nonappealable or void order does not cure lack of jurisdiction or render subsequent trial-court acts appealable

Key Cases Cited

Platte Valley Nat. Bank v. Lasen, 273 Neb. 602 (statutory revivor and nonfinal nature of revivor orders)
Fox v. Nick, 265 Neb. 986 (death of party suspends action until revivor; postdeath orders void)
In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 (statutory interpretation and jurisdiction principles)
Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713 (order reviving action is not final/appealable)
In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760 (reaffirming nonfinal character of revivor orders)
State v. Bracey, 261 Neb. 14 (void orders lack force as judgments)
Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81 (final-order jurisdiction principles)
Street v. Smith, 75 Neb. 434 (historical authority on suspension of action on death)