Kelliher v. Soundy, 852 N.W.2d 718

Kelliher and Soundy formed Clover, each initially owning 50%; disputes arose after Soundy bought out Kelliher (2007) and later allegedly agreed orally for Kelliher to regain interest by managing and funding the bar.
Soundy sold Clover’s sole asset (a bar property) to Schijohn, L.L.C.; Kelliher sued alleging Soundy lacked authority to sell and that Schijohn knew of Kelliher’s claim, asserting a quiet title claim among others.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Schijohn on the quiet title claim, finding Schijohn could rely on Soundy’s apparent authority; Kelliher’s motion to vacate was denied but the order was certified and an appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (Kelliher did not seek further review).
After remand Schijohn moved to cancel Kelliher’s recorded notice of lis pendens, citing a prospective buyer; the district court granted cancellation in June 2013 despite a scheduled trial and while appeal time remained.
Kelliher appealed the cancellation order; he conceded the order was nonfinal but argued it was reviewable under the collateral-order doctrine and that cancellation was improper while appeal rights remained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction: collateral-order review of lis pendens cancellation	Kelliher: order is collateral and immediately appealable because cancellation conclusively determined the notice and would be unreviewable later	Schijohn: order nonfinal; implies not immediately appealable	Court: collateral-order doctrine applies — order conclusively determined notice, would be effectively unreviewable, and cancellation is separate from merits under §25-531
Whether “good cause” includes merits of the underlying action	Kelliher: merits are irrelevant while time to appeal remains; cancellation based on dismissal of quiet title was improper	Schijohn: statute gives broad discretion; dismissal of quiet title and need to sell justify cancellation	Court: “good cause” does not include consideration of the action’s merits while appeal time remains; cancellation on that basis was error
Whether a prospective purchaser constitutes good cause	Kelliher: prospective sale is not good cause because lis pendens protects against third-party transfers that would defeat relief	Schijohn: existence of buyer and need for clear title justify cancellation	Court: prospective purchaser is not good cause; lis pendens purpose is to prevent such third-party acquisitions

Merrill v. Wright, 65 Neb. 794, 91 N.W. 697 (Neb. 1902) (interpreting Nebraska lis pendens statute in light of the common-law rule and limiting reach to interests dependent on the pending suit)
Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81, 718 N.W.2d 531 (Neb. 2006) (discusses limits on immediate appellate review and the collateral-order doctrine)
Coffin v. Old Line Life Ins. Co., 138 Neb. 857, 295 N.W. 884 (Neb. 1941) (describes lis pendens purpose: prevent third-party acquisitions during litigation that would frustrate relief)
Orange Cty. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 52 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995) (federal authority on when lis pendens cancellation is tied to merits versus statutory language)