Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha
296 Neb. 632
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Hilda Graham and Linda Clarke opened a joint account with a CD at First National Bank of Omaha (FNB) as a survivorship multiparty account; Hilda later phoned the bank to change the account to a single-party account with Gregg Graham as pay-on-death beneficiary.
- FNB employee Craven changed the account in the bank’s records without obtaining a signed written change as required by bank procedure and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2724(a); the signed paperwork could not be located.
- Hilda died; FNB paid the CD proceeds to Gregg Graham per its records; Clarke sued FNB claiming ownership of the CD; FNB filed a third-party claim against Gregg.
- The district court entered written orders on February 1, 2016, granting summary judgment to Clarke against FNB and in favor of FNB against Gregg.
- Gregg filed a "motion for new trial to amend judgment" on February 5, 2016, then filed a notice of appeal on February 9, 2016; the district court entered its order denying the postjudgment motion on February 12, 2016.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed Gregg’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was filed before the court had ruled on his timely postjudgment motion and thus was without effect under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gregg’s motion styled as a "new trial" tolled the 30-day appeal period under § 25-1912(3) | Gregg argued his postjudgment filing terminated the appeal clock because it functioned as a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment | FNB argued a new-trial motion after summary judgment is improper and does not toll the appeal period | Court held the motion was effectively a motion to alter or amend (reconsideration), filed within 10 days, so it did terminate the 30-day appeal period |
| Whether a notice of appeal filed after an alleged announcement but before entry of a ruling is effective under the § 25-1912 savings clause | Gregg argued the court (via the bailiff) announced denial of his postjudgment motion before he filed his notice, invoking the savings clause so the notice should be treated as filed on entry date | FNB argued there is no record evidence of any official announcement and thus the notice was premature and ineffective | Court held record lacked proof of any official announcement; the notice was filed before the court ruled and thus was without effect; appeal dismissed |
| What constitutes an "announcement" for purposes of § 25-1912(3) | Gregg relied on informal communications from the court’s bailiff as an announcement | FNB required a public or official notification (bench announcement, docket note, file-stamped or signed entry) | Court explained announcement means formal/public notification (bench statement, trial docket notes, file-stamped unsigned or signed-but-unfiled journal entries); informal bailiff communications insufficient |
| Whether prior case law (Dale Electronics/Reutzel) governs the savings-clause analysis | Gregg relied on Dale Electronics to treat a pre-entry notice as effective; argued Reutzel was superseded by later statutory amendment | FNB relied on Reutzel to show pre-entry notices after postjudgment motions are of no effect | Court concluded the Legislature later added a savings clause restoring Dale Electronics’ principle; but here invocation failed due to lack of record evidence of announcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Despain v. Despain, 290 Neb. 32 (treating unsigned journal entry sent to parties as an "announcement" for postjudgment timing)
- Strong v. Omaha Constr. Indus. Pension Plan, 270 Neb. 1 (motion for reconsideration is functional equivalent of motion to alter or amend judgment)
- Dale Electronics, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 203 Neb. 133 (a notice filed after trial court announced decision but before entry may be effective if record shows subsequent entry in accordance with announced decision)
- Reutzel v. Reutzel, 252 Neb. 354 (interpreting amended § 25-1912 to render pre-entry notices ineffective; later superseded by statutory savings clause)
- Haber v. V & R Joint Venture, 263 Neb. 529 (distinguishable; holds notice ineffective where court had not finally disposed of all postjudgment motions)