Hawley v. Skradski, 304 Neb. 488

Hawley (the only named plaintiff) sued Skradski for breach of contract, conversion, and tortious interference, claiming Skradski operated an HVAC business Hawley had purchased and converted its assets.
The 2008 asset purchase agreement showed KNR Capital Corp. (KNR), not Hawley individually, bought the HVAC business; KNR later sold it in 2011.
Hawley testified he was a KNR shareholder/officer and said KNR was dissolved and "transferred the remaining assets" (the claim) to him, but produced no written assignment document.
During trial Hawley sought to amend pleadings to allege an assignment from KNR or to add KNR as a plaintiff; the court refused to add KNR but allowed pleadings to be conformed to the evidence alleging an assignment.
The district court found an oral assignment to Hawley, proceeded to the merits, and granted Skradski a directed verdict; the Supreme Court reviewed whether Hawley had standing and whether the assignment met statutory requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / real party in interest	Hawley: he is KNR's assignee and thus the real party in interest	Skradski: KNR (not Hawley) owned the claim and no valid assignment exists	Held: Hawley lacked standing; claim belonged to KNR absent a valid written assignment
Validity of assignment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-304	Hawley: KNR orally assigned the claim to him (trial evidence)	Skradski: § 25-304 requires a written assignment to confer standing	Held: § 25-304 requires assignments in writing; oral assignment insufficient as a matter of law
Pleading amendment / adding KNR as plaintiff	Hawley: amendment or adding KNR should be allowed to conform to evidence	Skradski: untimely; fairest to require written assignment or KNR as plaintiff	Held: Court refused to add KNR but allowed pleadings to conform; absence of written assignment remained fatal
Review of merits after lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	Hawley: directed verdict on merits was erroneous	Skradski: lack of standing deprives trial and appellate courts of jurisdiction	Held: Without subject-matter jurisdiction appellate court may not review merits; judgment vacated and appeal dismissed

Jacobs Engr. Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38, 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018) (standards for subject-matter jurisdiction, standing, and review of factual findings)
Bohaboj v. Rausch, 272 Neb. 394, 721 N.W.2d 655 (2006) (de novo review of jurisdictional questions apart from factual findings)
Archer v. Musick, 147 Neb. 1018, 25 N.W.2d 908 (1947) (assignees of choses in action are real parties in interest when assignment is for purpose of collection)
Holmstedt v. York County Jail Supervisor, 275 Neb. 161, 745 N.W.2d 317 (2008) (subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue to resolve before merits)
State ex rel. Rhiley v. Nebraska State Patrol, 301 Neb. 241, 917 N.W.2d 903 (2018) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review merits if lower court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Sorensen v. Weston Bank, 125 Neb. 612, 251 N.W. 164 (1933) (corporate property belongs to the corporation, not its shareholders)