Anderson v. Finkle, 296 Neb. 797

Steven Anderson lent $50,000 to Summer Productions; Finkle signed a promissory note and did not repay after the venture failed.
Anderson sued Finkle for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; bench trial occurred August 25, 2015.
Anderson died on October 2, 2015; a personal representative was appointed October 30, 2015.
The district court entered judgment for Anderson on November 30, 2015, and later denied Finkle’s motion for new trial on January 29, 2016 — both after Anderson’s death and before revivor.
The estate moved to revive the action; the court issued an order of revivor on March 1, 2016.
Finkle filed two appeals: (1) from the posttrial judgment/denial of new trial, and (2) from the order of revivor and underlying orders; the Supreme Court consolidated and considered jurisdictional issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court have jurisdiction to enter judgment and deny new trial after plaintiff’s death but before revivor?	Anderson (estate) implied the posttrial orders remained valid and later revived the action.	Finkle: court lacked jurisdiction because action was suspended by Anderson’s death until revived; orders after death are void.	Held: Court lacked jurisdiction; postdeath judgment and denial of new trial were void.
Did Finkle’s February 25, 2016 notice of appeal confer appellate jurisdiction over the postdeath orders?	Anderson: appeal was timely and divested district court.	Finkle: appeal cannot validate void orders entered without jurisdiction.	Held: Appeal from void, nonappealable orders did not confer appellate jurisdiction.
Is an order of revivor a final, appealable order?	Anderson: revivor restores proceedings and can be appealed.	Finkle: appealed the revivor to challenge underlying orders.	Held: Order of revivor is not a final appealable order; appeal from it must be dismissed.
Should the underlying merits (validity/enforceability of the note) be reviewed on these appeals?	Anderson: merits support enforcement of note.	Finkle: raised parol evidence, credibility, consideration, and personal liability defenses.	Held: Merits not reached because appellate court lacked jurisdiction; appeals dismissed.

Platte Valley Nat. Bank v. Lasen, 273 Neb. 602 (addresses revivor procedure and finality issues)
Fox v. Nick, 265 Neb. 986 (discusses suspension of action on death and effect of failure to revive)
In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760 (holds that an order reviving an action is not final and not immediately appealable)
Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713 (same principle on nonfinality of revivor orders)
State v. Bracey, 261 Neb. 14 (void orders entered without jurisdiction are nullities)
Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81 (procedural discussion of nonfinal orders and appeals)