Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 895 N.W.2d 284

Background

Hilda Graham and Linda Clarke opened a joint survivorship CD account at First National Bank of Omaha (FNB); Hilda later requested the account be changed to single-party with Gregg Graham as pay-on-death beneficiary.
FNB’s employee implemented the change without a signed written change as required; Hilda later died and FNB paid the CD to Gregg Graham, excluding Clarke.
Clarke sued FNB claiming ownership; FNB filed a third-party claim against Gregg Graham.
The district court entered summary judgment for Clarke against FNB and for FNB against Graham on February 1, 2016.
Graham filed a “motion for new trial to amend judgment” on February 5 and filed a notice of appeal on February 9, before the court entered an order denying his postjudgment motion on February 12.
The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether Graham’s prematurely filed notice of appeal conferred jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(3).

Issues

Issue	Graham's Argument	FNB's Argument	Held
Does a postjudgment motion filed after summary judgment toll the 30‑day appeal period?	Graham treated his motion (styled new trial) as terminating the appeal period.	FNB argued a motion for new trial after summary judgment is improper and does not toll.	The court treated Graham’s motion as a timely motion to alter or amend (reconsideration) and found it did toll the appeal period.
Is a notice of appeal filed after a court’s announced decision but before entry of the ruling effective under the § 25‑1912 savings clause?	Graham argued the bailiff informed counsel the motion would be denied (an announcement), so his Feb. 9 notice should be saved and treated as filed on Feb. 12.	FNB argued that under § 25‑1912(3) a notice filed before entry of the order is ineffective unless there is an actual announced decision on the record.	The savings clause can save a prematurely filed appeal only if the notice shows it relates to an announced decision and the record shows a subsequent entry in accordance with that announcement.
Was there an actual announcement of the court’s ruling before Graham filed his notice of appeal?	Graham asserted the bailiff informed counsel of the denial (and submitted an affidavit and unsigned correspondence).	FNB argued the record lacks any official announcement by the court.	The court held the record lacked sufficient evidence of an official announcement; unsworn/unsigned correspondence and affidavits were insufficient.
Did the prematurely filed notice of appeal vest appellate jurisdiction?	Graham contended § 25‑1912(3) should save his notice and the appeal should proceed.	FNB maintained the notice was of no effect and the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction.	The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice was filed before the court ruled and was therefore ineffective.

Key Cases Cited

Dale Electronics, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 203 Neb. 133 (1979) (a notice filed after trial court announced decision but before entry can be effective if it relates to the announced decision and judgment is later entered accordingly)
Reutzel v. Reutzel, 252 Neb. 354 (1997) (interpreting amended § 25‑1912 to hold a notice filed between filing of a postjudgment motion and entry of ruling is of no effect)
Despain v. Despain, 290 Neb. 32 (2015) (unsigned journal entry sent to parties constituted an "announcement" for purposes of postjudgment filing rules)
Strong v. Omaha Constr. Indus. Pension Plan, 270 Neb. 1 (2005) (a motion labeled "new trial" after summary judgment requesting reconsideration is functionally a motion to alter or amend the judgment)
Haber v. V & R Joint Venture, 263 Neb. 529 (2002) (notice of appeal ineffective where court had not finally disposed of all postjudgment motions)